Page 22 - ELT_1st September 2020_Vol 373_Part 5

xx EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 373
view of fact that petitioner has produced verification certificates from
Indonesian Government, retroactive verification of which has not been
initiated by department within prescribed time, there is no dispute with
regard to Country of Origin of aforesaid goods - In view of above
department directed to finalize provisional assessment carried out at time
of import, within 3 months - Bank Guarantee and Bond filed by
petitioner be also returned - Section 18 of Customs Act, 1962 - Article 226
of Constitution of India — R.K. Digital Solutions v. Union of India (Telangana) ..... 670
PVC Laminated sheets imported from Thailand, enhancement of value on
the basis of imports from China not sustainable - See under
VALUATION (CUSTOMS) ............................. 709
Quantum of pre-deposit - See under STAY ..................... 579
Quasi-judicial nature of proceedings under Section 108 of Customs Act,
1962 - See under SUMMONS ............................ 604
Rebate - Exports - Manufacture and export of 100% Organic Cotton Yarn -
Denial of rebate for reason that goods exempted in terms of Notification
No. 30/2004-C.E. - HELD : Excise duty at concessional rate in terms of
Notification No. 29/2004-C.E. paid by petitioner - Impugned goods
exported cannot be said to be not liable to Excise duty so as to deny
benefit of rebate claim under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 -
Benefit of one of two notifications cannot be forced on petitioner merely
because revenue would stand to gain by denying rebate of Central Excise
duty paid - Fact of utilization of Cenvat credit for discharging Excise
duty on final product clearly shows that petitioner incapable of availing
benefit of Notification No. 30/2004-C.E. - In view of denial of legitimate
export incentive on exported goods, impugned order requires to be
interfered - Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 — Super Spinning Mills Ltd.
v. Joint Secretary Revision Application, New Delhi (Mad.) .................. 594
Recovery of tax - Sick Company - Department contesting adjustment of
refund amount against confirmed demands - HELD : Dues pertaining to
orders confirming demands, not disclosed by Department or earlier
management to BIFR and same not considered in scheme sanctioned by
BIFR - BIFR also by order dated 22-5-2020 protected management from
recovery of dues, not disclosed by old management or not provided for
in package approved by BIFR - Proceedings before BIFR not assailed
before any appellate forum - Therefore, no error in impugned order
passed by Commissioner (Appeals) - Section 11 of Central Excise Act,
1944 — Commr. of C. Ex. & S.T., Jaipur-I v. Rajasthan Explosives & Chemicals Ltd. (Tri. -
Del.) ......................................... 700
Redemption fine on confiscation of goods already exported not sustainable -
See under PENALTY ................................ 692
— reduced as evidence of smuggling of gold from Nepal not very strong -
See under GOLD SMUGGLING .......................... 716
REFUND/REFUND CLAIM :
— adjustment amount against confirmed demands of sick company
sustainable - See under RECOVERY ........................ 700
— of excess duty, writ jurisdiction not exercised - See under WRIT
JURISDICTION ................................... 666

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st September 2020  22