Page 282 - ELT_15th June 2020_VOL 372_Part 6th

928 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372
Demand (Contd.)
appellant with intention to evade Customs duty - Demand of duty and
interest on past consignments upheld - Penalty under Section 114A of
Customs Act, 1962, in respect of past consignments also upheld - Section
28 of Customs Act, 1962 — Mulchand M. Zaveri v. Commissioner of Customs,
Ahmedabad (Tri. - Ahmd.) ................................ 417
— Limitation - Refilling of imported ink from bulk container to small packs -
Extended period of limitation not invocable when assessee filed Excise
returns mentioning therein that the activity undertaken does not amount
to manufacture - Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944 — Domino Printech
India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commr. of C. Ex., Delhi-III (Tri. - Chan.) .................. 96
— of 10% of value of exempted goods on use of common inputs in
manufacture of dutiable as well as exempted goods when not sustainable
- See under CENVAT CREDIT ........................... 309
— 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
— on import of Motor Ship on filing belated Bill of Entry - See under
IMPORT ....................................... 559
— Recovery proceedings against refund - Refund granted upon finalization
of provisional assessment, there being no unjust enrichment - No appeal
being filed challenging the said adjudication which having attained
finality, barred on the ground of change of opinion or would amount to
reassessment when once the revenue not taken recourse to appeal in
higher forum - Once adjudication taken place under Section 11B of
Central Excise Act, 1944, Department cannot proceed to recover on the
basis of “erroneous refund” under Section 11A ibid so as to enable the
refund order to be revoked, as the remedy lied under Section 35E ibid for
applying to the Appellate Tribunal for determination and not invoking
Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944 — Honda Siel Power Products v. Union of
India (All.) ....................................... 30
— Sale of SS Flats - Undervaluation - Evidence - No sufficient corroborative
evidence adduced to establish charge that appellant had been
undervaluing sale price of SS Flats to a particular buyer and taking this
amount in cash - There was no recovery of any cash during searches -
Merely some vague entries in records of buyers are not sufficient
evidence, some of which were found by adjudicating authority
pertaining to freight - No questioning done on these records during
investigations - Accordingly, dropping of demand on this count by
adjudicating authority cannot be faulted - Section 11A of Central Excise
Act, 1944 — Synergy Steels Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Alwar (Tri. - Del.) .... 129
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
Description of food supplements and misdeclaration of value, penalty
imposable - See under PENALTY ......................... 109
Designing and engineering fee on import under Turnkey projects, when
not includible in assessable value - See under VALUATION (CUSTOMS) ... 478
D.G.F.T Notification No. 6/2015-20 - See under EXIM ................ 305

EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th June 2020  282