Page 254 - ELT_15th June 2020_VOL 372_Part 6th

900 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372
Advance authorisation licence used for SEZ supply without Bill of Export,
proof of export not established - See under EXIM ................ 638
Advance Authorizations import, demand on finalization of provisional
assessment on the ground of expiry of Advance Authorization not
sustainable as at time of import it was valid - See under IMPORTS ....... 890
Advance licence holder cannot be prohibited from outsourcing goods
imported duty free for manufacturing to other persons - See under JOB
WORK ........................................ 602
Aggrieved party against Settlement order - See under WRIT JURISDICTION ... 840
Alternate remedy’s availability no bar for entertaining writ jurisdiction
when authorities exceeding their jurisdiction - See under WRIT
JURISDICTION ................................... 346
Alternative remedy availability not a bar for exercising writ jurisdiction
against belated SCN issued on change of opinion - See under WRIT
JURISDICTION ................................... 30
Amendments in shipping bill allowed to claim MEIS benefits, mistake being
inadvertent - See under MERCHANDISE EXPORTS FROM INDIA
SCHEME (MEIS) .................................. 660
— of IGM, scope of - See under IMPORT GENERAL MANIFEST ......... 888
Anti-dumping duty - Injection moulding machine imported from China -
Used for moulding of Synthetic Polymer viz. PVC, TPR and EVA to
generate sole for footwear and not for making or repairing footwear or
other articles of hides, skins or leather - Machine classifiable under Tariff
Item 8477 10 00 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and not under Heading 8453
ibid - Machine not exclusively used for making footwear and footwear
sole/strap/heel - Contention that Heading 8453 ibid refers
independently to ‘Machinery for making or repairing footwear’ not
sustainable - That expression to be understood in context of heading
dealing with ‘Machinery for preparing, tanning or working hides, skins
or leather’ - Contention that benefit given to importer on the basis of
clamping force being less than 40 tons in other case of no avail as not said
question of fact specifically not pleaded before concerned authorities -
Anti-dumping duty in terms of Notification No. 39/2010-Cus. to be
levied - Order of Appellate Tribunal affirmed — Jama Corporation Pvt. Ltd. v.
Commissioner of Customs (Imports) (S.C.) ......................... 193
— on polished porcelain/vitrified floor tiles imported from Sri Lanka - See
under TILES ..................................... 143
Appeal against penalty - Prerequisites of competence and proportionately
with gravitas has to be satisfied - Hence, on appeal against penalty
imposed on employees of importer company, arguments on confiscation
have to be looked into even if employees did not have locus for quashing
of confiscation — S. Muthusamy v. Addl. Director General (Adj.), D.R.I., Mumbai (Tri. -
Mumbai) ........................................ 849
— Commissioner (Appeals) - Powers - Scope of - Relinquishment of goods -
Issue before first Appellate Authority in appeal by importer limited to
non-disposal of assessee’s claim in relation to goods already cleared for
relinquishment and refund under Section 26A of Customs Act, 1962 - Not
open to first Appellate Authority to revisit decision-taken in favour of
assessee save on Appeal Authorised by Commissioner of Customs -
Direction to Additional Commissioner for further disposition of goods
that remain not cleared set aside - No flaw in non-consideration of claim
in relation to goods cleared by assessee - Section 128 of Customs Act,
1962 — Canpex Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. v. Commr. of Cus. (Export), Nhava Sheva, Raigad (Tri.
- Mumbai) ....................................... 397
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th June 2020  254