Page 16 - ELT_1st June 2020_VOL 372_Part 5th

xiv EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372
Delay (Contd.)
— of 6 months between hearing and order pronouncement, order not
sustainable - See under ADJUDICATION ORDER ................ 691
DEMAND :
— Drawback - Excess and Ineligible drawback - Mis-declaration of
Drawback Tariff Classification of export goods, viz., "Ductile Iron
Casting”- HELD : Entire ineligible Duty Drawback availed, admitted by
applicant and same paid along with applicable interest as demanded in
SCN - Full and complete disclosure of duty liability made before Bench,
and applicant co-operated with investigation - Case fit for settlement of
Duty Drawback at ` 5,25,527 along with applicable interest - Sections 28
and 114 of Customs Act, 1962 — In Re : Indo Shell Cast Pvt. Ltd. (Sett. Comm.) ..... 771
Departmental clarifications - Circulars and Instructions - Instructions issued
under Section 151A of Customs Act, 1962 cannot alter structure of
schedule under Customs Tariff Act, 1975 nor can such instructions be
issued for purpose of altering position of any goods from one Chapter to
another within First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975 — Commissioner of
Customs (Port) v. Sanwar Agarwal (Cal.) .......................... 686
Dialysers, classification of - See under BLOOD FILTERS .............. 686
Disclaimer Certificate’s non-production from recipient SEZ unit evidencing
that drawback not claimed on goods is not a ground for rebate rejection -
See under EXPORT REBATE ............................ 748
Disposable sterilised dialysers, classification of - See under BLOOD
FILTERS ....................................... 686
Documents ordered to be furnished in remand order of CESTAT not
furnished in re-adjudication, natural justice violated - See under
ADJUDICATION .................................. 663
Drawback availed in excess and wrongly, settlement application
maintainable - See under DEMAND ........................ 771
— Rebate claim cannot be rejected for failure to file Disclaimer Certificate
from recipient SEZ unit evidencing that drawback not claimed on goods -
See under EXPORT REBATE ............................ 748
Dressed human hair, classification of - See under HUMAN HAIR ......... 740
Electronic evidence - Pen drive data is not substantial evidence of
clandestine removal - See under EVIDENCE ................... 632
Enquiry not conducted before revoking Courier Agency licence, order not
sustainable - See under COURIER AGENCY LICENCE ............. 696
EPCG Scheme for import of luxury cars, scope of conditions thereof - See
under CARS ..................................... 721
Evidence - Clandestine removal - Electronic evidence - Pen drive data is not
substantial evidence, especially in absence of evidence how extra
consideration was given and received by assessee - Demand for
clandestine removal based on undervaluation set aside — Principal
Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise v. Shah Foils Ltd. (Guj.) ............... 632
— under FERA - Statement of employee of accused which retracted next day
and bereft of any particulars such as names of persons from whom seized
funds received and distributed, cannot be relied upon particularly when
same not corroborated with any other evidence — Manak Kala v. Union of
India (Del.) ....................................... 701
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st June 2020  16