Page 295 - ELT_15th June 2020_VOL 372_Part 6th

2020 ] SUBJECT INDEX 941
fact after obtaining certified copy of bail application, original authority
conducted re-adjudication as to whether bills are genuine or not - In bail
application, appellants pleading that gold was purchased vide bills dated
18-2-2014, 19-2-2014 and 22-2-2014 - Thus doubt raised by Commissioner
(Appeals) as to whether appellants in possession of bills at time of filing
bail application itself, stands eliminated - Since seal of issuing certified
copy present on main bail application, no reason to disbelieve same -
Also, except for slight difference in name mentioned in one bill, no
serious discrepancy found in bills - Nothing on record to suspect that
bills created at later stage - Appellants sufficiently discharged onus to
establish possession of gold - Department cannot proceed to confiscate on
assumptions and presumptions - Impugned order set aside - Section 111
of Customs Act, 1962 — S. Ramki v. Principal Commissioner of Customs, Chennai-III
(Tri. - Chennai) ..................................... 372
Goods imported in excess of what was declared in the Bills of Entry, excess
goods confiscable but not entire consignment - See under
CONFISCATION, REDEMPTION FINE AND PENALTY ........... 884
Gum arising during manufacture of refined vegetable oil, exemption
admissible, it being waste - See under WASTE .................. 142
Gutka - Exemption to Units situated in North Eastern States - Investment
made in the form of plant and machinery on or before 31-3-2005 can be
withdrawn after ten years under Clause (F) of Notification No. 8/2004-
C.E. - Petitioner entitled to remove such capital investments made prior
to 31-3-2005 after 31-3-2015 in the form of plants and machineries -
Section 11 of Central Excise Act, 1944 not empowers the Department to
attach any property of an assessee/person on the ground that such
person or assessee may be liable to pay the Department any amount
towards meeting the dues under the Central Excise Act, 1944 or the Rules
framed thereunder - Department cannot attach any other property of the
petitioner other than any excisable goods and also cannot restrain the
petitioner from lifting the plants and machineries by taking recourse of
Section 11 of Central Excise Act, 1944 — Pan Parag India Ltd. v. Union of India
(Gau.) ......................................... 813
HARYANA GENERAL SALES TAX ACT, 1973 :
— See under TAX RECOVERABLE ACCOUNT .................. 785
Hearing not granted in rejecting application under Sabka Vishwas (Legacy
Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, natural justice violated - See under
SABKA VISHWAS (LEGACY DISPUTE RESOLUTION) SCHEME, 2019 ... 522
Hearing opportunity not granted before adjudication, natural justice
violated - See under ADJUDICATION ...................... 614
— not granted, ex parte order not sustainable - See under ADJUDICATION ... 828
High Court cannot declare a judgment passed by Supreme Court of India as
per incuriam - See under PRECEDENT ...................... 794
High Speed Diesel Oil - Inter-State purchases of High Speed Diesel Oil on
concessional rate of tax of 2% - ‘C’ forms - Introduction of GST regime
w.e.f. 1-7-2017 - Department’s site blocked to deny access to petitioner
and other similarly placed persons from downloading ‘C’ forms - High
Court in similar matter directed the Revenue to permit the petitioner-
assessee to download ‘C’ forms - Instant writ petition falls clearly within
four corners of Ramco Cements Ltd. case as well as ‘Southern
Cotspinners Coimbatore Private Ltd.’ case — Shir Varalakshmi Company v. State
of Tamil Nadu (Mad.) .................................. 338

EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th June 2020  295