For claiming refund as contemplated in Section 11B of the Act, assessee has to prove that incidence of duty not passed to buyer. The word ‘Buyer’ in clause (e) of proviso to section 11B(2) cannot be restricted to the first buyer from the manufacturer – Adison & Company Ltd V CCE - 2017-TIOL-192-SC-CX-LB.

 Section 11C of CEA, 1944 grants discretionary and not a mandate on part of the Government to issue or not issue a notification and in absence of any obligation on part of government, courts are precluded from giving any mandamus to exercise such power to issue notification – Mangalore Organics Ltd V UOI - 2017-TIOL-187-SC-CX.

 Though periods of limitation, being procedural law, are applied retrospectively, yet if a shorter period of limitation is provided by a later amendment to a statute, it could render vested right of action nugatory as such right of action would now become time-barred under amended provision and this is not permissible – M.P. Steel Corporation V CCE - 2017 (50) STR 2015 (SC).

 Undisputed facts recorded in Order of Settlement Commission and not tinkered by High Court while holding that Settlement Commission had committed an error by applying wrong principle of law and remanding the matter. On admitted facts, High Court applied correct principle of law which Dept. was not able to dislodge. This was well within the powers of the High Court under Article 226 of Constitution – UOI V Asahi India Safety Glass Ltd - 2017 (50) STR 122 (SC).

 Exercise of option to pay fine in lieu of confiscation is not mandatory in the case of goods, the importation of which is prohibited under the Act or any other law for the time being in force. If there are restrictions in importing certain goods and if the conditions for importing have not been complied with, it definitely amounts to a prohibition under the relevant statutes. – Mohammed Fazil V Deputy Commissioner of Customs (ACC), Cochin - 2017 349 E.L.T. 75 Ker.

 Confiscation of goods for non-declaration of MRP sustainable – Sun Exports V Commissioner of Customs (Airport), Chennai - 2017 349 E.L.T. 258 Mad.

 Capital goods credit availed and simultaneous depreciation claimed under Income Tax on the said amount which was reversed in the subsequent returns filed. Matter remanded to examine the income tax returns and accordingly extend the benefit if if it was reversed. – Cassel Research Laboratories PVT Ltd V CESTAT - 2017 TIOL 762 HC MAD CX.

 Merely because the co-accused had pleaded guilty and accepted punishment in criminal proceedings, would not make the other person also be liable for charges of Sec.112(a) & (b) of CA - D.V.Kishore V CC – 2017-TIOL-883-HC-MAD-CUS.

 Security Services provided by State Police – In view of precedent decisions of Tribunal in favour of appellant and fact that they are a Dept. of State Govt., pre-deposit of mandatory 10% dispensed with and Tribunal directed to hear the appeal on merits – Superintendent of Police V CCC, CE & ST 2017 (50) STR 7 (MP).

 Clarificatory provisions can operate with retrospective effect. Explanation would have to be read as a whole irrespective of profit motive and so long as such service is rendered for consideration, it falls within the purview of the tax – Chanakya Mandal V UOI -  2017-TIOL-855-HC-MUM-ST.

 It is settled legal position that the right to cross examine sought or to have opportunity to effectively exercise that right is an essential part of principle of natural justice – Savino Micron India Pvt Ltd V UOI - 2017-TIOL-878-HC-AHM-CX.

 Prosecution of petitioner is not sustainable when the order on charge of evasion of duty and penalty has been set aside. – Saf Yeast Co. Ltd V UOI - 2017 (348) ELT 621 (ALL).

 Once it is found that a person is entitled to the benefit of the Exemption Notification, the interpretation of the clauses containing the procedural aspects may have to be liberal – Maheswari Industries V CCE 2017-TIOL-880-HC-AP-CX.