Page 23 - ELT_15th August 2020_Vol 373_Part 4

2020 ] INDEX - 15th August, 2020 xxi
Redemption fine (Contd.)
and same not challenged by respondent - Penalty imposable only under
Section 112(ii) of Customs Act, 1962 and not to exceed 10% of duty or
` 5000, whichever is higher - Redemption fine under Section 125 of
Customs Act, 1962 cannot exceed market value of confiscated goods, less
duty chargeable thereon and - Hence, redemption fine reduced to
` 50,000 from ` 1,55,000 and penalty reduced to ` 5,000 - Impugned order
further modified - Sections 112(ii) and 125 of Customs Act, 1962 —
Segudawood Ameer v. Additional Commissioner of Customs (Airport), Chennai (Mad.) ..... 473
— Sale of confiscated goods - Whether redemption fine and penalty, if any,
imposed in adjudication order needs to be recovered from sale proceeds,
if confiscated goods are sold/disposed of by auction during pendency of
appeal - Contradicting decisions by different Benches of Tribunal -
Matter referred to Larger Bench - Sections 111, 112 and 125 of Customs
Act, 1962 — Commissioner of Customs (ICD, TKD), New Delhi v. Oriental Trimex Ltd.
(Tri. - Del.) ....................................... 558
REFUND/REFUND CLAIM :
— admissibility in remand adjudication proceedings carried out beyond
remand directions, order not sustainable - See under ADJUDICATION .... 463
— delayed of differential duty remitted under protest, interest payable to
assessee - See under INTEREST .......................... 463
— delayed, relevant date for reckoning interest - See under INTEREST ...... 512
— of Cenvat credit - Limitation - Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 clearly
stating that refund claims subject to “such safeguards, conditions and
limitations as may be specified, by the Central Government, by
notification” - Notification Nos. 5/2006-C.E. (N.T.), 27/2012-C.E. (N.T.)
and 14/2016-C.E. (N.T.) issued by Central Government in exercise of
powers conferred under Rule 5 ibid providing that application to be
made before expiry of period specified in Section 11B of Central Excise
Act, 1944 - In respect of refund of claims made under Rule 5 ibid
including refund claims relating to service providers under Finance Act,
1994, provision of Section 11B ibid squarely applicable - Section 11B of
Central Excise Act, 1944 applicable even to claim of refund of unutilised
Cenvat credit — Suretex Prophylactics India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commr. of C. Ex., Cus. & S.T.,
Bangalore (Kar.) ..................................... 481
— of Countervailing Duty (CVD) and Special Additional Duty (SAD) not
admissible on failure to fulfill export obligation under advance
authorization - See under EXIM .......................... 550
— of terminal Excise Duty on deemed export admissible notwithstanding
option of availing exemption - See under EXIM POLICY ............ 470
— of unutilised Cenvat credit - Limitation - Relevant date - Time-limit to be
computed from last date of last month of quarter which would be
relevant date for purposes of examining if claim is filed within limitation
prescribed under Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 - In other words,
relevant date for computation of time-limit will be the end of the quarter”
in which FIRC’s are received as per the extant Notification No. 27/2012-
C.E. (N.T.) - 12 claims filed on 3-1-2014 being beyond one year from last
date of last month of quarters and time-barred - Matter remanded to
original Authority for adjudication of remaining 4 claims - Rule 5 of
Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 — Suretex Prophylactics India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commr. of C.
Ex., Cus. & S.T., Bangalore (Kar.) ............................. 481
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th August 2020  23