Page 23 - ELT_1_1st April 2020_Vol 372_Part

2020 ] INDEX - 1st April, 2020 xxi
to violation of principles of natural justice — Kaipan Pan Masala Pvt. Ltd. v.
Commr. of CGST, Ex. and Cus., Bhopal (Tri. - Del.) ..................... 145
Sample test report given in absence of test memos which were not prepared
at the time of drawl of samples, not co-relatable with disputed product,
hence not reliable — Kaipan Pan Masala Pvt. Ltd. v. Commr. of CGST, Ex. and Cus.,
Bhopal (Tri. - Del.) ................................... 145
Show Cause Notice issued after more than two years from finalisation of
assessment order on change of opinion, writ jurisdiction invocable - See
under WRIT JURISDICTION ............................ 30
— issued on same issue answerable to different adjudicating authority to be
transferred and adjudicated by the officer competent to decide the case
involving higher duty - See under ADJUDICATION ............... 46
— kept in call book for a long period without disclosing any reasons vitiates
entire adjudication proceedings - See under ADJUDICATION .......... 52
Special Economic Zone - Electricity generation therein - Removal to DTA -
Exemption - Petitioner pleading that relief from payment of Customs
duty granted for period 26-6-2009 to 6-9-2010 vide earlier decision of
High Court in their earlier writ petition reported at 2015 (330) E.L.T. 883
(Guj.), which was also upheld by Apex Court, be extended for period
beyond 6-9-2010 with consequent relief of refund of Customs duty paid
by them - HELD : A conscious decision was taken in earlier writ petition
to grant limited relief for period mentioned ibid by quashing proviso to
Notification No. 25/2010-Cus., which denied exemption to electricity of
Tariff Item 2716 00 00 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 removed from Special
Economic Zone to DTA or non-processing areas of SEZs - Relief was
granted for limited period for which notification ibid, which had
amended parent Notification No. 21/2002-Cus., was given retrospective
effect - Said decision was based on correct interpretation of law as it then
existed - During aforesaid period, Rule 47(3) of SEZ Rules, 2006 was in
operation and imposing Customs duty on electricity sold in DTA
amounted to double taxation inasmuch as SEZ unit had already suffered
duty on inputs/raw materials/consumables used in generation of
electricity - However, with effect from 6-9-2010, aforesaid SEZ Rule had
been kept in abeyance and hence there was no question of double
taxation - Rather if relief was granted beyond this date, it would have
amounted to double benefit to petitioner - Even at that time, after
pronouncement of decision ibid, petitioner had moved a ‘Note for
Speaking to the Minutes’ seeking rectification of said decision for
extending relief beyond aforesaid period which after arguments was
dismissed as not pressed - Further, during pendency of earlier petition,
said Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. was rescinded and replaced with new
Notification No. 12/2012-Cus. which was never challenged by petitioner
- In view of above, relief beyond aforesaid period not admissible and no
consequent relief of refund of Customs duty paid, can be granted - Writ
petition not sustainable - Article 226 of Constitution of India — Adani Power
Ltd. v. Union of India (Guj.) ................................ 60
SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONES, 2006 :
— Rule 47(3) - See under SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE ............... 60
Special leave petition, consequences of dismissal - See under APPEAL TO
SUPREME COURT .................................. 3
SS Flats - Demand on account of undervaluation not sustainable in absence
of cogent evidence - See under DEMAND .................... 129
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st April 2020  71