Page 17 - ELT_1st July 2020_Vol 373_Part 1

2020 ] INDEX - 1st July, 2020 xv
Demand (Contd.)
confirmed to that extent after giving the benefit of SSI Exemption, if any
and treating any non-duty paid clearances as cum-duty clearances -
Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944 — Venkateswara Industrial Products P.
Ltd. v. C.C.E., C. & S.T., Hyderabad-III (Tri. - Hyd.) ..................... 98
— Demand against VIPPL on account of difference between the value of
sales shown in Central Excise and the sales income shown in the IT
Returns not sustainable, such a difference can be a cause for suspicion
and investigation but by itself cannot be conclusive evidence that goods
were clandestinely removed and sold - Section 11A of Central Excise Act,
1944 — Venkateswara Industrial Products P. Ltd. v. C.C.E., C. & S.T., Hyderabad-III (Tri. -
Hyd.) .......................................... 98
— SSI Exemption - Department themselves admitting their subsequent
notice that VIPI is a separate entity - Turnover of VIPI, therefore, needs to
be deducted from the total turnover in this show cause notice and
demand needs to be reduced to that extent - Imposition of fine and
penalties not warranted - Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944 —
Venkateswara Industrial Products P. Ltd. v. C.C.E., C. & S.T., Hyderabad-III (Tri. - Hyd.) ..... 98
Deposited - Amount during course of investigation, scope of refund - See
under REFUND/REFUND CLAIM ........................ 127
Destruction of confiscated goods during pendency of appeal - Petitioner not
having valid license at the time of import but license renewed
subsequently retrospectively - Destruction of seized drugs after the date
of expiry - Customs Authorities having acted bona fide, Department
cannot be asked to compensate the petitioner for incidental loss suffered
by him on account of the pendency of the proceedings - Petitioner neither
applied for redemption fine nor approached the High Court for release of
goods on certain conditions in view of impending expiry of the drugs -
Petitioner could also have urged the Customs Authorities to auction the
goods well in time - Section 111 of Customs Act, 1962 — Universal Drug
Centre v. Union of India (Tripura) ............................. 20
D.G.F.T. Trade Notice No. 11/2015, dated 14-12-2015 - See under EXIM ...... 45
D.G.F.T. Trade Notice No. 16/2018, dated 7-6-2018 - See under EXIM ....... 45
Drawback - Duty drawback - Job work carried out by 100% Export-Oriented
Unit (EOU) - Goods not exported directly from 100% EOU, but came
back to DTA unit for further processing - Such situation not envisaged by
relevant rule and notifications - Assessee clearly not intended to be kept
out of beneficial sweep of C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 31/2000-Cus., dated
20-4-2000 - Domestic tariff area unit entitled to Drawback at All India
Rate in respect of duty suffered on inputs utilised by 100% EOU units -
Matter remanded to Assessing Authority to verify specifically whether
duty was remitted on raw materials utilised in job work and if positive,
assessee entitled to drawback of duty paid in accordance with law - Rule
3 of Customs, Central Excise Duties and Service Tax Drawback Rules,
1995 - [Petition seeking declaration that paras 2(a) and 2(c) of Notification
No. 31/99-Cus. (N.T.) ultra vires Rules 3 and 4 of Customs, Central
Excise Duties and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995 and Articles 14,
19(1)(g) and 245 of Constitution of India dismissed as not pressed] — GTN
Textiles Limited v. Secretary, M.F. (D.R.), New Delhi (Mad.) .................. 12
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st July 2020  17