Page 24 - ELT_15th August 2020_Vol 373_Part 4

xxii EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 373
Refund/Refund Claim (Contd.)
— Unjust Enrichment - Evidence - Refund of differential duty remitted on
imported Palmolein oil - Assessee pleading incidence of duty not been
passed on to consumer as sale completed in August 2001, and differential
duty remitted, under protest, in September, 2001 - HELD : Copy of sales
register showing quantity of 2479.03 metric tons of product sold in
August, 2001 - Credit invoices issued during month of August, 2001, tally
with sales register - Cost break-up of product reveals sale value, and duty
in relation to goods, without inclusion of differential duty remitted -
Also, profit and expenditure elements on par with claim of petitioner for
previous and subsequent years - Facts itself clear to establish position
that incidence of duty not been passed on to customer - Impugned order
is set aside - Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 — 3F Industries Limited v.
Asstt. Commr. of Customs, Nagapattinam (Mad.) ...................... 463
Release - Provisional release of export goods, permissibility - See under
SEIZURE ....................................... 518
— Provisional Release of seized Gold, scope of interference by High Court -
See under SEIZED GOLD .............................. 451
Relevant date of limitation for refund of unutilized Cenvat credit - See
under REFUND/REFUND CLAIM ........................ 481
Remand adjudication proceedings beyond remand directions not
sustainable - See under ADJUDICATION ..................... 463
Sale of confiscated goods, matter with regard to recovery of redemption fine
and penalty from sales proceeds referred to Larger Bench - See under
REDEMPTION FINE ................................ 558
Seized Gold - Provisional Release thereof - Discretionary powers of
adjudicating authority - Writ interference - Proper authority to order
provisional release of three gold chains seized from petitioner on his
arrival from abroad, is adjudicating authority - Such an authority is
empowered not only to allow provisional release but also to reject it if
deem fit - High Court should not interfere in these matters unless request
of provisional release of seized goods is rejected by adjudicating
authority - Accordingly, adjudicating authority directed to take
appropriate decision on request of petitioner for provisional release of
said goods after hearing him - Section 110A of Customs Act, 1962 -
Article 226 of Constitution of India — P. Pandithurai v. Joint Commissioner of
Customs (Adjudication), Trichy (Mad.) ........................... 451
Seizure - Provisional release of export goods - In terms of clause 2.2(c) of
Customs Manual, provisional clearance ought to be the rule and not an
exception - C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 1/2011-Cus., dated 4-1-2011 also
permitting provisional release of export goods on execution of Bond of an
amount equivalent to value of goods along with furnishing appropriate
security in order to cover redemption fine and penalty - C.B.E. & C.
Facility Circular No. 1/2014, dated 2-1-2004 does not override conditions
set out in Board’s circular - One of two reports of CLRI in assessee’s
favour - Interminable detention of goods neither enure to benefit of
assessee nor to interest of State - Such detention would lead to
accumulation of demmurage and detention charges, apart from loss of
foreign exchange, which has to be best avoided, unless, as goods where
required to be absolutely confiscated - Condition for release of goods
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th August 2020  24