Page 15 - ELT_1_1st April 2020_Vol 372_Part

2020 ] INDEX - 1st April, 2020 xiii
Demand (Contd.)
evidence in absence of his cross-examination in terms of Section 9D of
Central Excise Act, 1944 - No independent investigations conducted from
buyers of finished goods whose name allegedly appeared in these loose
sheets - In absence of corroborative evidence, no reliance can be placed
on third party evidence - Impugned order not sustainable - Section 11A
of Central Excise Act, 1944 — Synergy Steels Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise,
Alwar (Tri. - Del.) .................................... 129
— Clandestine removal of goods - Merely excess consumption of natural gas
for manufacture of Ceramic Glaze Fritz cannot be a ground to allege
excess manufacture and clearance of goods when there is no evidence of
excess receipt, processing or consumption of other raw materials -
Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944 — Shri Krishna Industries v.
Commissioner of C. Ex. & S.T., Vadodara-II (Tri. - Ahmd.) .................. 121
— Clandestine removal of goods - Parallel invoices having different format
from the invoice format of the assessee not reliable in absence of any
corroborative evidence such as clearance and transportation of goods
though buyer accepted receipt of goods - Section 11A of Central Excise
Act, 1944 — Shri Krishna Industries v. Commissioner of C. Ex. & S.T., Vadodara-II (Tri. -
Ahmd.) ........................................ 121
— Limitation - Refilling of imported ink from bulk container to small packs -
Extended period of limitation not invocable when assessee filed Excise
returns mentioning therein that the activity undertaken does not amount
to manufacture - Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944 — Domino Printech
India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commr. of C. Ex., Delhi-III (Tri. - Chan.) ................... 96
— Recovery proceedings against refund - Refund granted upon finalization
of provisional assessment, there being no unjust enrichment - No appeal
being filed challenging the said adjudication which having attained
finality, barred on the ground of change of opinion or would amount to
reassessment when once the revenue not taken recourse to appeal in
higher forum - Once adjudication taken place under Section 11B of
Central Excise Act, 1944, Department cannot proceed to recover on the
basis of “erroneous refund” under Section 11A ibid so as to enable the
refund order to be revoked, as the remedy lied under Section 35E ibid for
applying to the Appellate Tribunal for determination and not invoking
Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944 — Honda Siel Power Products v. Union of
India (All.) ........................................ 30
— Sale of SS Flats - Undervaluation - Evidence - No sufficient corroborative
evidence adduced to establish charge that appellant had been
undervaluing sale price of SS Flats to a particular buyer and taking this
amount in cash - There was no recovery of any cash during searches -
Merely some vague entries in records of buyers are not sufficient
evidence, some of which were found by adjudicating authority
pertaining to freight - No questioning done on these records during
investigations - Accordingly, dropping of demand on this count by
adjudicating authority cannot be faulted - Section 11A of Central Excise
Act, 1944 — Synergy Steels Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Alwar (Tri. - Del.) .... 129
Description of food supplements and misdeclaration of value, penalty
imposable - See under PENALTY ......................... 109
Dismissal of special leave petition, consequences of - See under APPEAL
TO SUPREME COURT ................................ 3
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st April 2020  63