Page 18 - ELT_15th July 2020_Vol 373_Part 2

xvi EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 373
DEMAND :
— and interest - Limitation - Extended period - Misdeclaration of facts -
Appellants consciously misdeclared their product as CKD parts of
electrically operated two wheelers of captive use classifying the same
under Tariff Item 8714 99 90 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 to evade
Customs duty by availing concessional rate of the duty under
Notification No. 12/2012-Cus. - Extended period of limitation invocable -
Demand of interest under Section 28AA of Customs Act, 1962 - Section
28(4) of Customs Act, 1962 justified — Bird Retail Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of
Customs (Import), New Delhi (Tri. - Del.) .......................... 267
— Limitation - Extended period, Invocation of - Wilful mis-
statement/suppression of facts, Absence of - Assessee, by means of
written declaration apprised revenue of availing benefits in terms of
Notification No. 50/2003-C.E. - HELD : Tribunal adequately taken note
of factual situation and concluded that no the ground for invoking
extended period made out by revenue - Also, question of law sought to
be answered well-settled and no longer res integra - No inclination to
interfere with or set aside impugned order - Section 11A of Central Excise
Act, 1944 — Pr. Commissioner of C. Ex., Chandigarh-I v. Deyam Industry (H.P.) ....... 193
— Wharfage charges - Petitioner’s chartered cable vessel carry fiber-optic
cable and other submerged equipment to be laid on the sea bed - Once
the Port Trust has declared the vessel itself as a cargo, in view of its
activity of laying under sea cable, Port Trust Authorities empowered to
levy wharfage against the vessel itself - Manifesting of the vessel as cargo
not suffers from any infirmity with reference to the activity of the vessel
berthed in the second respondent Port vis-à-vis the definition of
wharfage and other provisions of Major Port Trust Act, 1963 - Demand of
wharfage sustainable against the activity of the vessel belonging to the
petitioner at the time when it was berthed in the second respondent Port
- Petitioner cannot claim the benefit of Note 10 under Scale 1-Wharfage of
Chapter-III ibid in regard to the past wharfage levied by the Port Trust in
regard to the past wharfage levied by the Port Trust, Note 10 not being
merely a clarificatory order - Scale of Rates of Chennai Port Trust in
Gazette No. 251 dated 27-8-2014 Section 48 of Major Port Trusts Act, 1963
- Item No. 36A of Schedule of wharfage under Scale 1 of Chapter-III of
Scale of Rates — Alcatel Submarine Networks Uk Ltd. v. Union of India (Mad.) ....... 196
DEPB rate fixation - Cost of fuel imported under Advance Licence not to be
taken into consideration while fixing rate - See under EXIM .......... 229
Determination of individual dumping margin for imposition of ADD,
appeal to Appellate Tribunal admissible against DA’s order refusing to
impose it - See under ANTI-DUMPING ...................... 241
D.G.F.T. Public Notice No. 35/2015-20, dated 26-9-2019 on gold jewellery
import under advance authorization, scope of - See under EXIM ........ 151
Drawback claim cannot be reduced merely on the basis of market enquiry
on valuation of export goods - See under VALUATION (CUSTOMS) ..... 286
Dumping margin for imposition of ADD, appeal to Appellate Tribunal
admissible against DA’s order refusing to determine it - See under
ANTI-DUMPING .................................. 241
Entitlement to MEIS, benefit not deniable for inadvertent error in filling
form - See under MERCHANDISE EXPORTS FROM INDIA SCHEME
(MEIS) ........................................ 149
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th July 2020  18