Page 17 - ELT_1st September 2020_Vol 373_Part 5

2020 ] INDEX - 1st September, 2020 xv
Evidence (Contd.)
Confirmation of demand solely based on statements recorded under
Section 108 of Customs Act, 1962 would require cross-examination by
petitioner - However, if such statements merely intended for
corroboration of independent evidence, cross-examination need not be
allowed - Therefore, 1st respondent to decide whether statements
recorded to be solely relied for confirming proposed demand or relied for
mere corroboration of independent evidence gathered during
investigation - Guidelines of Supreme Court in D.K. Basu [(1997) 1 SCC
416)] not violated particularly in light of absence of any material
records/documents to substantiate that threat or coercion exercised on
petitioners when statements were recorded - As no documents produced
to substantiate that statements recorded subsequently retracted by
petitioners, petitioner’s request cannot be acceded to - Further,
petitioners not arrested or detained but merely summoned under Section
108 ibid to record evidence and to produce documents for making
enquiry under the Act - In case primary reliance to be placed on
statements of 2 employees of 2 CHA’s for passing adjudication order, 1st
respondent shall issue suitable summons for cross-examination by
petitioner before passing such order - Article 226 of Constitution of India
— Jet Unipex v. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai (Mad.) ................. 649
— of smuggling of gold from Nepal not strong, Redemption Fine and
penalty reduced - See under GOLD SMUGGLING ............... 716
— Statements of co-noticees retracted, it not constituting legal evidence for
penalty imposition on main accused - See under PENALTY .......... 676
— Statements recorded under Section 108 of Customs Act, 1962 - Object of
empowering officer of Customs Department to record evidence under
impugned Section 108 ibid is to collect information of contravention of
the provisions of Customs Act, 1962 or concealment of contraband or
avoidance of duty of Excise so as to enable collection of evidence of proof
of contravention of provisions of Act for initiating proceedings for
further action of confiscation of contraband or imposition of penalty
under Act etc. - Impugned statements intended for setting law in motion
for officers acting under Act to investigate and collect evidence for
issuing show cause notice whether under Section 28 ibid or under Section
124 ibid or under other provisions of Customs Act, 1962 — Jet Unipex v.
Commissioner of Customs, Chennai (Mad.) ......................... 649
Exemption admissibility on import of Closed Circuit Television (CCTV)
camera - See under DEMAND ........................... 698
— Notification No. 32/99-C.E. (area based), date of commencement of
benefit thereof for newly inducted units - See under AREA BASED
EXEMPTION .................................... 625
— under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. admissible on payment of SAD by
using DEPB scrips - See under REFUND/REFUND CLAIM .......... 714
— Yarn export on concessional duty payment, rebate cannot be denied on
ground that goods were exempted under another notification - See under
REBATE ....................................... 594

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st September 2020  17