Page 281 - ELT_15th June 2020_VOL 372_Part 6th

2020 ] SUBJECT INDEX 927
Demand (Contd.)
other persons/witnesses concerned, though, a vague averment made
before High Court - Thus no proper pleading of ‘threat/force/duress/
coercion or pressure’ as being utilized by Officers of Revenue to extract
the statements - Allegation of violation of Section 9D of Central Excise
Act, 1944 not attracted — N.R. Sponge Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise,
Raipur (Chhattisgarh) .................................. 321
— Clandestine removal of goods - Merely excess consumption of natural gas
for manufacture of Ceramic Glaze Fritz cannot be a ground to allege
excess manufacture and clearance of goods when there is no evidence of
excess receipt, processing or consumption of other raw materials -
Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944 — Shri Krishna Industries v.
Commissioner of C. Ex. & S.T., Vadodara-II (Tri. - Ahmd.) .................. 121
— Clandestine removal of goods - Parallel invoices having different format
from the invoice format of the assessee not reliable in absence of any
corroborative evidence such as clearance and transportation of goods
though buyer accepted receipt of goods - Section 11A of Central Excise
Act, 1944 — Shri Krishna Industries v. Commissioner of C. Ex. & S.T., Vadodara-II (Tri. -
Ahmd.) ........................................ 121
— 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
— Limitation - Appellants registered with the Department and in continuous
correspondence with department and various visits of Audit teams taken
place - Moreover, Department issued a show cause notice earlier
demanding Service Tax in respect of (i) Affiliation fee; (ii) Inspection Fee;
(iii) Licence Fee, under the category of “franchise service” - Second Show
Cause Notice being based on same set of contracts and other documents,
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
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th June 2020  281