Page 23 - ELT_3rd_1st May 2020_Vol 372_Part

2020 ] INDEX - 1st May, 2020 xxi
Identity of Accused No. 14 not established and he arraigned by name of
Kasam on statement of co-accused - Discharge of Accused No. 14 proper
- Section 135 of Customs Act, 1962 - Section 85 of Gold Control Act, 1968
— Supdt. of Customs, Bhuj v. State of Gujarat (Guj.) .................... 318
Pulses import - Validity of notification modifying import from free to
restricted - See under EXIM ............................ 305
Rate of interest on delayed refund - See under INTEREST ............ 385
Reassessment of Bill of Entry, issuance of speaking order is a must - See
under ASSESSMENT ................................ 458
— limitation for filing appeal - See under APPEAL TO COMMISSIONER
(APPEALS) ..................................... 458
Redemption fine - Adjudication order of re-export of goods on payment of
redemption fine in excess of jurisdiction conferred by Statute - Provisions
of Customs Act, 1962 do not provide for re-export of imported goods on
payment of redemption fine - Ratio of decision in HBL Power Systems
Ltd. [2018 (362) E.L.T. 856 (Tribunal)], squarely applicable - Impugned
order not sustainable in law and therefore set aside - Section 125 of
Customs Act, 1962 — Pace India v. Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore (Tri. - Bang.) ... 442
— Export goods i.e. Nubuck Leather on testing not found to be same as
declared, confiscation, Redemption Fine and penalty sustainable - See
under CONFISCATION .............................. 382
— not imposable in respect of clearance of past consignments on basis of
current test report - See under CONFISCATION ................ 388
Re-export order of goods on payment of redemption fine not sustainable -
See under REDEMPTION FINE .......................... 442
REFUND/REFUND CLAIM :
— Cenvat Credit - Unutilised credit - Assessee stopped production due to
closure of factory - Refund filed by appellant under Section 11B of
Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 10 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004
which only provides for transfer of unutilized Cenvat credit but not
encashment - Prior to 1-4-2012, refund was admissible under Rule 5 ibid
if Cenvat credit not utilized for any other reason - However, after
amendment of Rule 5 ibid w.e.f. 1-4-2012, there is no scope of refund of
the Cenvat credit which has not been utilized at the time of closure of
factory - Consequently, appellant’s request for cash refund of unutilized
Cenvat credit cannot be admitted under any legal provision — Saera
Electric Auto Pvt. Ltd. v. Commr. of C. Ex. & Service Tax, Gurgaon-I (Tri. - Chan.) ....... 452
— delayed, rate of interest thereon - See under INTEREST ............. 385
— of import duty - Relinquishment of goods - In terms of Section 26A of
Customs Act, 1962 three conditions to be fulfiled simultaneously along
with one of components of fourth - Assessee’s claim that two containers
cleared by it should also be entitled to benefit of refund of duty - No
evidence on the record to show that goods that were taken into its
possession were same as that which was cleared - Goods neither re-
exported nor destroyed in compliance with Section 26A ibid -
Relinquishment of title not permissible in respect of goods already
cleared - Claim for refund of Section 26A ibid limited only to those which
goods were not cleared and acknowledged as relinquished - Non-
consideration of claim in relation to goods cleared by assessee, proper —
Canpex Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. v. Commr. of Cus. (Export), Nhava Sheva, Raigad (Tri. - Mumbai) . . 397

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st May 2020  23