Page 23 - ELT_1st September 2020_Vol 373_Part 5

2020 ] INDEX - 1st September, 2020 xxi
Refund/Refund Claim (Contd.)
— SAD paid by using DEPB scrips - Exemption under Notification No.
102/2007-Cus. - Admissibility - There is nothing in aforesaid notification
of its non-applicability in case SAD is paid by using duty payment scrips
- In view of Delhi High Court judgment in 2016 (334) E.L.T. 624 (Del.) on
identical matter, refund envisaged under aforesaid notification not
deniable - Stay of aforesaid judgment by Apex Court not meaning that it
has lost its legality - Refund admissible - Section 27 of Customs Act, 1962
— Gravita India Ltd. v. Commr. of C. Ex. & Central Goods & S.T., Jaipur (Tri. - Del.) ..... 714
Retracted statements of co-noticees not constituting legal evidence for
penalty imposition on main accused - See under PENALTY .......... 676
Retroactive verification of country of origin certificate already completed,
department directed to finalize provisional assessment on import of gold
granules from Indonesia - See under PROVISIONAL ASSESSMENT ..... 670
Revocation of Customs Broker Licence not sustainable for not adhering
prescribed timeline - See under CUSTOMS BROKER’S LICENSE ....... 677
— when not sustainable - See under CUSTOMS BROKER’S LICENSE ...... 677
SAD paid by using DEPB scrips, exemption and consequent refund
admissible - See under REFUND/REFUND CLAIM .............. 714
Shipper’s claim as importer, sustainability when Bill of Entry already filed
by importer on paper - See under IMPORTER .................. 598
Ships - Dredgers are ocean going ships - See under DREDGER .......... 662
Sick Company - Adjustment of refund amount against confirmed demand
sustainable - See under RECOVERY ....................... 700
Smuggling of Gold - Penalty imposable on co-accused as his role in offence
fully established - See under PENALTY ..................... 705
Spares of branded automobiles imported, Port load document is not proper
evidence of undervaluation charge - See under VALUATION
(CUSTOMS) ..................................... 681
Statements of co-noticees retracted, it not constituting legal evidence for
penalty imposition on main accused - See under PENALTY .......... 676
— recorded under Section 108 of Customs Act, 1962, evidentiary value
thereof - See under EVIDENCE .......................... 649
Status Holder’s Duty Free Credit Entitlement Scheme (DFCES), blatant
misuse thereof - See under EXIM ......................... 581
STAY/DISPENSATION OF PRE-DEPOSIT :
— Quantum of pre-deposit - Financial hardship - Non-functioning of
assessee not in dispute and appellant also sustained various other losses -
Appellant if directed to make pre-deposit of ` 40,00,000, it would amount
to undue hardship - Offer made by appellant, for payment of ` 5,00,000
within a period of five months, requires to be accepted and would also
amount to protecting the interest of the Revenue - CESTAT to proceed in
the disposal of the Appeal after such amount has been deposited -
Section 129E of Customs Act, 1962 as it existed prior to its amendment on
1-10-2014 — Texplas India P. Ltd. v. Commr. of Cus., International Container Depot
(Uttarakhand) ..................................... 579

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st September 2020  23