Page 23 - ELT_1st July 2020_Vol 373_Part 1

2020 ] INDEX - 1st July, 2020 xxi
Refund/Refund Claim (Contd.)
meaning of words from their own account and on their own account -
Assessee failing to establish through any of documentary evidence that
amount paid by them on their own account - No merits in Appeal -
Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 — Anant B. Timbadia & Co. v.
Commissioner of Customs (Export), Mumbai (Tri. - Mumbai) ................. 127
— Limitation - Demand - Protest - Assessee seeking refund of excise duty
paid on clearance of stainless steel coin blanks to Department of
Economic Affairs in terms of Ad hoc Exemption Order No. 11/11/94,
dated 21-9-1994 - HELD : Ad hoc Exemption granted to specific assessee,
in specific facts and for specific quantity of Coin Blanks manufactured
and supplied to Department of Economic Affairs - Impugned case not
case for general exemption on the basis of which Assessee claiming
refund - Payment of excise duty at time of clearance of goods in
anticipation of exemption right from day one was therefore with ardent
hope of real and effective exemption and refund of duty paid under
compulsion for clearance of goods - Such payment even though not
labelled as been paid ‘under protest’, very well to be treated as payment
made ‘under protest’ only as per provisions of Section 11B of Central
Excise Act, 1944 paving way for rightful refund of excise duty in
consonance with Article 265 of Constitution of India - Impugned order
set aside - Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 — Steel Authority of India
Ltd. v. Union of India (Mad.) ................................ 3
— of credit accumulated due to closure of factory denied, there being no
error apparent on record, ROM application not sustainable - See under
RECTIFICATION OF MISTAKE ......................... 130
— of excise duty paid under compulsion of clearance cannot be denied on
ground of limitation - See under STRICTURES .................. 3
— of Terminal Excise Duty (TED) - Supplies of goods against International
Competitive Bidding (ICB) - Deemed exports - Supplies made to BHEL
Noida for 3x250 MW Power Project not being entitled to exemptions
from Customs duty, resultantly not ab initio exempted for excise duty -
Supplies made to Lanco Infratech, Gurgaon for 2x507.5 MW Power
Project and BHEL Noida and BHEL, Hyderabad for 2x750 MW Power
Project although in relation to setting up of Mega Power Project, covered
under the category of para 8.2(g) of Foreign Trade Policy, 2009-14 and not
entitled to exemption from Customs duty in absence of any notification
for import of goods at zero Customs duty, Condition No. 19 under Entry
No. 91 of Notification No. 6/2006-C.E. not being fulfilled - Refund
admissible - Para 8.3(c) read with 8.4.4(iv) under Chapter 8 of Foreign
Trade Policy, 2009-14 — Multitex Filtration Engineers Limited v. Union of India (Del.) ... 68
— of Terminal Excise Duty (TED) - Supplies of goods against International
Competitive Bidding (ICB) to Oil India Limited - Deemed exports -
Petitioner elected to pay excise duty and not claim exemption - Supplies
being made during the period from 15-12-2009 to 10-2-2011, condition
that supplies which are exempt ab initio not eligible for refund of TED
incorporated w.e.f. 18-4-2013 not applicable - Refund of TED admissible
under para 8.3(c) read with para 8.4.4(iv) of Foreign Trade Policy, 2009-14
— Multitex Filtration Engineers Limited v. Union of India (Del.) ................ 68

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st July 2020  23