Page 337 - ELT_15th June 2020_VOL 372_Part 6th

2020 ] SUBJECT INDEX 983
period in question - However, duty not demanded under this category -
Further, VSAT usage fee being in the nature of telecommunication costs
apportioned and recovered as reimbursement, such charges are not liable
to Service Tax — Manipal Universal Learning Pvt. Ltd. v. Commr. of C. Ex., Mangalore
(Tri. - Bang.) ...................................... 408
Waiver of SCN, scope of - See under ADJUDICATION .............. 380
Waste - Fatty acid, wax and gum arising during manufacture of refined
vegetable oil to be treated as waste and eligible to exemption under
Notification No. 89/95-C.E. — Ricela Health Foods Limited v. Commissioner of
Central Excise, Chandigarh (Tri. - Chan.) .......................... 142
Wax arising during manufacture of refined vegetable oil, exemption
admissible, it being waste - See under WASTE .................. 142
WILD LIFE (PROTECTION) ACT, 1972 :
— scope of search, seizure and investigations by DRI - See under SEARCH
AND SEIZURE ................................... 673
— See also under STATEMENT ............................ 673
Wilfull intent of customs duty evasion established, extended period for past
imported consignments sustainable - See under DEMAND .......... 417
WORDS AND PHRASES :
— Reason to believe, meaning and scope - See under ‘REASON TO
BELIEVE’ ...................................... 542
— Reconditioning - It is synonymous with repair — Aurobindo Pharma Ltd. v.
Commissioner of Customs, Hyderabad (Tri. - Hyd.) ..................... 622
Writ jurisdiction - Adjudication - Jurisdictional error committed by
Adjudicating authority - Appeal before Tribunal against Commissioner
(Appeals) order withdrawn without any liberty to approach any other
forum as he had declined to entertain appeal on merits for the reason that
the same filed beyond period of limitation - HELD : Right to approach
constitutional Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India or under
Article 32 ibid does not require permission or liberty of any other forum -
Qualitatively, authority exercised under Article 226 ibid not akin to
appellate authority - As long as, it is demonstrated that quasi-judicial
order questioned in jurisdiction on account of breach of principles of
natural justice or in erroneous exercise of jurisdiction or the like, writ
petition can be entertained, though constitutional Court always has
discretion to not grant any relief on other grounds which are required to
be recorded - In instant case jurisdictional error may have been
committed by adjudicating authority - Petitioner did not get chance to
address issue on merits on account of petitioner’s delay in filing appeal -
Since jurisdictional error amenable to correction within scope of judicial
review exercised in extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 ibid,
there is no impediment in receiving petition or adjudicating on such
aspect notwithstanding appeal from order of adjudicating authority not
being entertained on the ground of limitation or appeal before Tribunal
withdrawn since Commissioner (Appeals) had only acted within bounds
of his authority - Impugned order set aside - Article 226 of Constitution
of India — Kesoram Spun Pipes and Foundries Ltd. v. Commr. of Central Excise (Cal.) .... 309
— Aggrieved party against Settlement order - DRI having seized goods and
issued show cause notice which is yet to be adjudicated, is an aggrieved
party against order of Settlement Commission - Writ jurisdiction
invocable - Article 226 of Constitution of India — Principal Additional Director
General, DRI v. Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax Settlement Commission (Del.) ..... 840
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th June 2020  337