Page 24 - ELT_1st July 2020_Vol 373_Part 1

xxii EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 373
Refund/Refund Claim (Contd.)
— Unjust enrichment - No change in price structure of the product
immediately after payment of duty on protest - Instead of verifying the
fact of not passing of incidence of duty on the customers itself appellant
got it verified by the Range Superintendent - Appellant not to be blamed
for its failure to produce the same before him which, admittedly was a
departmental report and could not be possibly accessed by the appellant
unless supplied to it by the Department - Production of sample invoices
before the Commissioner (Appeals) sufficient to establish that tax not
collected from the customer - Amount of duty paid can also not be shown
in the book of accounts as receivable because duty demanded way back
in 1999 and show cause notice of such duty demand dropped in 2003 -
Furthermore every expenditure made by manufacturing company may
not necessarily be recovered from the customer - Refund admissible -
Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 — J.K. Prints v. Commissioner of CGST,
Navi Mumbai (Tri. - Mumbai) ............................... 110
Revision by Central Government - Scope of - Revision is not appeal - In
terms of statutory provisions, Government in revision can only annul,
meaning thereby declare invalid or modify appellate order under
revision on application for such revision by Commissioner - Instant case,
Central Government by confirming order-in-original and setting aside
order-in-appeal sat in appeal - Since revision is not appeal, impugned
order not sustainable - Section 35EE of Central Excise Act, 1944 - Article
226 of Constitution of India — Indian Oil Corporation Limited v. Commissioner
Central Excise, Haldia (Cal.) ................................ 95
SABKA VISHWAS (LEGACY DISPUTE RESOLUTION) SCHEME, 2019 :
— Notice before rejection of application - Contention that assessee eligible to
file an application despite non-quantification or communication of
amount to it by Department till 30-6-2019 not considered - Opportunity
of hearing should have been given to assessee before passing any adverse
order - Order rejecting application on the ground that “the concerned
investigative authority has submitted that the amount has neither been
quantified nor communicated to the assessee”, set aside - Matter
remanded — Industrial Personnel & Security Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Commr. of CGST,
Delhi South (Del.) .................................... 44
Sales value shown in Central Excise and the sales income shown in the IT
Returns differ, clandestine removal allegation not sustainable - See under
DEMAND ...................................... 98
Settlement Commission - Rectification of Mistake for not considering
benefit of exemption notification - Application for recall of order not
considered by Settlement Commission on the ground that its order is
final and conclusive, hence not recallable - Such application to be
considered and decided by Settlement Commission — Supreme Art Works v.
Union of India (Mad.) .................................. 27
Shipping Bill’s amendment for conversion to MEIS Scheme allowed
notwithstanding non filing of ‘declaration of intent’ within stipulated
time - See under EXIM ............................... 49
Single Member Bench not bound to follow judgment rendered by Division
Bench - See under APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ................... 130
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st July 2020  24