Page 24 - ELT_2nd_15th April 2020_Vol 372_Part

xxii EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372
Refund/Refund Claim (Contd.)
absolutely silent qua petitioner’s contention indicating that machinery in
any manner not capable of being dealt with in or passing, so as to pass on
burden of duty to consumer or end-user - Authorities in uncanny
avoidance to deal with aspect rendering order vitiated and, therefore,
decision of authority qua depositing amount into consumer fund
required to be deprecated, quashed and set aside - Authority may be
called upon to decide aspect of payment of refund along with interest
without further insisting upon any other material and based upon
material already submitted - Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 — Oil
and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. Union of India (Guj.) .................. 194
— of Central Excise duty paid by DTA supplier on SEZ supplies not
admissible to SEZ unit/developer - See under SEZ ............... 266
— SEZ developer/unit procuring goods from DTA - Central Excise duty
paid by DTA unit and collected from SEZ developer not refundable to
such SEZ developer when assessment of goods not challenged by them
nor by DTA unit - Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 — Adani Power
Ltd. v. Commr. of C.T. - Rangareddy - GST, Telangana (Tri. - Hyd.) .............. 266
Release of seized Areca Nuts allegedly smuggled from Nepal - See under
SEIZED GOODS .................................. 237
Reliance of DRI Alert Circular in adjudication, scope of - See under
ADJUDICATION .................................. 206
Scheduled offence cases under PMLA, jurisdiction of designated Court - See
under MONEY-LAUNDERING .......................... 209
Seized goods alleged to be smuggled - Release of - Confiscation (Customs) -
Seizure of vehicle carrying ‘Full dried Areca Nuts’ allegedly smuggled
from Nepal - Application for release of goods rejected on the ground that
report of laboratory indicating that goods suspected to be not fit for
human consumption - HELD : Consignor and consignee recorded and
identified - Goods not seized at any notified Customs zone or area -
Additional Solicitor General trying to supplement reasons for formation
of ‘reason to believe’, on mere suspicion, through affidavit of authority -
General practice in trade cannot be, ipso facto, applied and adopted in
instant case, for unless act and conduct of petitioner makes him to be part
and parcel of trading community, based in area or dealing with illegal
activities of such like nature - No track record of past history of instant
petitioners - Relevancy of each of five notifications/circulars/
memorandum placed on record by Revenue not examined and reasons
not assigned with regard thereto - No live link or tell a tale sign of
product being of foreign origin or having passed through territory other
than India, much less Nepal - If goods “unsafe food”, authorities under
relevant Act, ought to proceed and take appropriate action, for mere
report in that regard not to confer any jurisdiction upon Customs Officer
under Customs Act - Goods in question yet raw, unfinished product,
meant to be transported to another State for processing and packaging,
whereafter, only, eventually same sold in open market - No reason to
differ with judgment in Salsar Transport Company - Section 110 of
Customs Act, 1962 — J.K. Traders v. Union of India (Pat.) ................ 237
Seizure order - Reason to believe - Mere suspicion cannot be reason
sufficient enough to derive conclusion forming belief ‘for reason to
believe.’ — J.K. Traders v. Union of India (Pat.) ..................... 237
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th April 2020  40