Page 257 - ELT_15th June 2020_VOL 372_Part 6th

2020 ] SUBJECT INDEX 903
However, party effected by earlier order has a right to take appropriate
proceedings against said order - Section 129B of Customs Act, 1962 —
Commissioner of Customs, Goa v. Shree Balaji Automobiles (Bom.) .............. 557
Appellate Tribunal’s Order - Non-speaking order - Demand of Customs
duty on wastage generated in warehouse of EOU - Impugned order
indicating that main ground of non-removal of wastage and hence
demand being premature as agitated by appellant in his appeal has not
been discussed at all - Another ground agitated that SION norms are not
applicable to EOUs has also not been discussed - ROM application of
appellant also dismissed with a cryptic order - In view of above,
impugned non-speaking order set aside and matter remanded to
Tribunal for fresh disposal as expeditiously as possible by addressing
two main grounds ibid - Section 129B of Customs Act, 1962 — GKB
Ophthalmics Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Goa (Bom.) ................. 826
— Non-speaking order - No proper reasons given by Tribunal in support of
its finding - Certificate of the Metro Railway certifying the nature of
service rendered by appellant also not taken into account - Question of
limitation not gone into by the Tribunal in its proper perspective - Factual
issue with regard to suppression of facts ought to have been gone into in
detail by Tribunal - Mixed questions of facts and law being involved,
matter remanded to Tribunal for reconsideration and re-determination -
Section 35C of Central Excise Act, 1944 —General Security & Information Services
v. Commr. of CGST & C. Ex., Kolkata (Cal.) ........................ 553
Area based exemption - Modification/variation when clarificatory and
retrospective in operation - Doctrine of promissory estoppel -
Presumption against retrospective operation - Validity of Notification
Nos. 16/2008-C.E. and 36/2008-C.E. amending Notification Nos.
39/2001-C.E.; 21/2008-C.E. and 36/2008-C.E. amending Notification No.
56/2003-C.E. as amended by Notification No. 27/2004-C.E.; Notification
Nos. 20/2008-C.E., 36/2008-C.E. and 38/2008-C.E. amending
Notifications Nos. 20/2007-C.E. and 56/2003-C.E. - Notification and
industrial policy granting exemptions subsequently modified to prevent
different types of tax evasion tactics by unscrupulous manufacturers -
Object of granting exemption by way of refund was to refund the Excise
duty paid on genuine manufacturing activities and object subsequent
notifications/industrial policies was prevention of tax evasion -
Subsequent notifications/industrial policies only rationalizes quantum of
exemption and proposing rate of refund on total duty payable on
genuine manufactured goods - Subsequent notifications/industrial
policies issued in public interest and issued after thorough analysis of
cases of tax evasion and receipt of reports - No vested right taken away
by such notifications/policy - Said notifications/policy not bad in law,
arbitrary and/or hit by doctrine of promissory estoppel - Said
notifications/policies only declare refund of Excise duty paid genuinely
and paid on actual manufacturing of goods and not on the duty paid on
the goods manufactured only on paper and without undertaking any
manufacturing activities of such goods - Clarificatory in nature issued in
larger public interest and in Revenue’s interest - Can be made applicable
retrospectively to prevent frustration of object and purpose and intention
of Government to provide Excise duty exemption only in respect of
genuine manufacturing activities carried out in concerned areas -
Decision of respective High Courts to quash subsequent
notifications/industrial policies, set aside - Clarification that judgment
shall not affect cases in which Excise duty already refunded prior to
subsequent notifications/industrial policies and they are not to be
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th June 2020  257