Page 16 - ELT_3rd_1st May 2020_Vol 372_Part

xiv EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372
Demand (Contd.)
Department not within their right to issue a second show cause notice
alleging suppression - Section 73 of Finance Act, 1994 — Manipal Universal
Learning Pvt. Ltd. v. Commr. of C. Ex., Mangalore (Tri. - Bang.) ............... 408
— Limitation - Extended period - Suppression of facts - Department totally
aware of the activities of appellants Department being informed by
appellants about their intention to claim exemption under Notification
No. 7/2003-C.E. - Test conducted in 2003 when found to be in favour of
appellants, department free to get another test conducted in 2005 also -
This having not done, extended period not invokable - Suppression of
fact cannot be alleged on the basis of statements of dealers to conclude
that goods cleared in the past also similar to the goods tested - Demand
for period prior to 5-2-2006 barred by limitation — A.R. Trading Company v.
Commr. of C. Ex. (Appeals-II), Bangalore (Tri. - Bang.) .................... 388
— Limitation - Extended period - WhatsApp messages clearly show that the
previous consignments produced in the workshop and corroborated by
the detailed analysis in the impugned order and also by the recovery of
document from appellants premises and also from sample tested - Taking
of samples of previous consignment, if any, for chemical/physical testing
or valuation purposes, not material, if the fact that the said goods were
produced in a workshop by mixing gold, sand and other materials is
suppressed - Elaborate mechanism for hoodwinking Customs devised by
appellant with intention to evade Customs duty - Demand of duty and
interest on past consignments upheld - Penalty under Section 114A of
Customs Act, 1962, in respect of past consignments also upheld - Section
28 of Customs Act, 1962 — Mulchand M. Zaveri v. Commissioner of Customs,
Ahmedabad (Tri. - Ahmd.) ................................ 417
— of 10% of value of exempted goods on use of common inputs in
manufacture of dutiable as well as exempted goods when not sustainable
- See under CENVAT CREDIT ........................... 309
D.G.F.T Notification No. 6/2015-20 - See under EXIM ................ 305
D.G.F.T. Notification No. 19/2015-20, validity thereof - See under EXIM ..... 305
D.G.F.T Notification No. 22/2015-20 - See under EXIM ............... 305
Dried inactive yeast, classification of - See under ENZYMES ............ 458
Dutiable goods - Demand of 10% of value of exempted goods on use of
common inputs in manufacture of dutiable as well as exempted goods
when not sustainable - See under CENVAT CREDIT .............. 309
Enhancement of declared value, speaking order required to be issued - See
under ADJUDICATION .............................. 400
Enzymes - Imported inactive dried yeast - Classification under Chapter 23 of
Central Excise Tariff - Material purchased and used for poultry feed
supplement - HELD : Heading 2102 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975, covers
yeasts (active or inactive) and as per test reports of CRCL, impugned
goods are inactive yeast - Assessee’s argument that imported goods not
fit for human consumption, hence do not fall under Heading 2102 ibid
unacceptable, as yeast declared not fit for human consumption, not
excluded from impugned Heading 2102 ibid - Entire Chapter 23 ibid,
talks of preparations of a kind used in animal feeding however
impugned products imported not preparations of kind animal feeding -
Item cannot be classified along with animal feed merely by virtue of
inclusive definition given in explanatory notes for Heading 2309 of
Central Excise Tariff - Also, when yeast having specific mention under
Heading 2102 ibid, item cannot be classified under any other heading -
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st May 2020  16