Page 24 - ELT_1_1st April 2020_Vol 372_Part

xxii EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372
Statement of buyers - Undervaluation charge of goods solely based on
statement of buyers not presented for cross-examination not sustainable -
See under VALUATION (CENTRAL EXCISE) .................. 121
Statute - Definition of one statute cannot be applied mechanically to another
statute - See under INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE .............. 14
Subsidy of VAT under State Government scheme not includible in Central
Excise valuation - See under VALUATION (CENTRAL EXCISE) ........ 95
Surrender of foreign exchange procured for import of goods but not
utilized not done, Managing Director of Company liable for
contravention - See under FOREIGN EXCHANGE MANAGEMENT
ACT, 1999 ....................................... 3
Synthetic waste imported and cleared on provisional assessment, samples
cannot be drawn from factory after clearance of goods from Customs
area - See under SAMPLES ............................. 42
Test reports of samples when not reliable - See under SAMPLE TEST
REPORT ....................................... 145
Testing of samples after provisional release of imported goods, scope of -
See under SAMPLES ................................ 42
Third Party Evidence cannot be relied for alleging clandestine removal - See
under DEMAND .................................. 129
Tiles - Anti-dumping duty on polished porcelain/vitrified floor tiles
imported from Sri Lanka - Sri Lankan supplier importing semi-finished
tiles from China and after polishing and sizing thereof exporting to India
- Such tiles considered to have originated from Sri Lanka and not from
China and not liable to Anti-dumping duty under Notification No.
73/2003-Cus. — Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore v. Tile Italia Mosaics Pvt. Ltd.
(Tri. - Bang.) ...................................... 143
Tobacco - Chewing tobacco vis-à-vis Zarda Scented Tobacco - Classification
of - Department relying upon CRCL test report of samples drawn from
factory premises held that the product classifiable under Tariff Item 2403
99 30 of Central Excise Tariff as Zarda Scented Tobacco as against
assessee’s claim of classification under Tariff Item 2403 99 10 ibid as
chewing tobacco - Neither test report giving any conclusive finding on
BIS parameters with regard to moisture content, nicotine, total ash and
acid insoluble ash contained in Zarda Scented Tobacco and Chewing
Tobacco as mentioned at Entry Nos. 1523441994 and 1530411994
respectively nor request for retesting of samples allowed - Further, no
test memos having been drawn in respect of samples sent to CRCL, test
report given in absence thereof cannot be co-related with products
manufactured by assessee - Product being marketed as chewing tobacco
by declaring description on pouches as Chewing Tobacco Premium
classifiable under Tariff Item 2403 99 10 of Central Excise Tariff in view of
decision in Flakes-N-Flavourz [2015 (327) E.L.T. 435 (Tri.- Del.)] — Kaipan
Pan Masala Pvt. Ltd. v. Commr. of CGST, Ex. and Cus., Bhopal (Tri. - Del.) .......... 145
Tobacco manufacturer who closed his business and surrendered Central
Excise registration, liable to be refund of unutilized credit in cash - See
under REFUND/REFUND CLAIM ........................ 81
Tobacco Powder (Snuff) - Manufactured vis-à-vis unmanufactured Tobacco
- Classification - Demand - Department based on test report of Chemical
Examiner holding goods as manufactured tobacco and accordingly
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st April 2020  72