Page 11 - ELT_3rd_1st May 2020_Vol 372_Part

2020 ] INDEX - 1st May, 2020 ix
Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (Contd.)
— Rule 6(3)(c) - See under CENVAT CREDIT .................... 309
— Rule 10 - See under REFUND/REFUND CLAIM ................ 452
Clandestine removal of goods established with corroborative evidence,
demand sustainable - See under DEMAND ................... 321
— Scope of applicability and extent of Section 9D(1) of Central Excise Act,
1944 - See under DEMAND ............................ 321
Classification of dried inactive yeast - See under ENZYMES ........... 458
— of Natural calcite powder - See under NATURAL CALCITE POWDER .... 403
— of Polypropylene Multi-Filament Yarn - See under POLYPROPYLENE
MULTI-FILAMENT YARN (PPMF) ........................ 388
Closure of factory - Cash refund of unutilized credit not admissible - See
under REFUND/REFUND CLAIM ........................ 452
Commissioner (Appeals)’s powers, scope of - See under APPEAL ........ 397
Common inputs in manufacture of dutiable as well as exempted goods,
demand of 10% of value of exempted goods when not sustainable - See
under CENVAT CREDIT ............................. 309
Confiscation and penalty - Misdeclaration of goods - Incomplete declaration
- No investigation to establish intent to misdeclaration goods - For mis-
match between Bill of Lading and actual clearance of goods, proceedings
under Section 116 of Customs Act, 1962 to arise - Any intended
misdeclaration of quantity to succeeded only with a corresponding
misdeclaration in Bill of Lading - No evidence to such effect -
Misdeclaration of goods in only one of invoices due inadvertence and not
deliberate - Competent Authority to dispose of application for
amendment of Bill of Entry - Amendment implicit on clearance of goods
after exclusion from Advance Authorization Scheme and discharge of
duty charged - No reason to sustain confiscation of goods and imposition
of penalty- Order modified accordingly to relieve importer of burden of
redemption fine and penalty - Sections 111, 112 and 125 of Customs Act,
1962 — Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. C.C. (Export), JNCH, Nhava Sheva, Raigad (Tri. - Mumbai) .... 455
— Misdeclaration for imported goods - Small solar Cells imported from
Singapore and Germany - Misdeclaration and erroneous classification,
Allegation of - Revenue classifying impugned goods as ‘scrap/waste
solar cells’ solely on the ground that imported goods found to be broken
solar cells of different sizes - HELD : Purchase Orders, Bills of Entry and
Packing List as well as commercial invoices clearly mentioning
description of item as ‘small solar cells’ (uneven cut solar cells) -
Classification of imported goods on basis of broken solar cells, as
scrap/waste, not tenable in law because substantial quantity not found to
be in broken condition – Assessee cannot be held responsible for broken
silicon wafer found during investigation as imported small solar
cells/panel very fragile in nature and damage occurred on account of
mis-handling during investigation - Both authorities have misread and
misconstrued reports submitted by IISc., CPCB and KSPCB; and
statement recorded during investigation, wrongly relied upon - Report of
CPCB, clarifying that scrap of solar cells (broken/small pieces of silicon
wafers) not appearing in any of Schedule of the Hazardous and other
Wastes (Management & Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016 -
Further, technical write up of cut solar cells clearly proves that small
solar cells can be used for various solar applications depending upon the
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st May 2020  11