2015 (11) TMI 604 - SC - Central Excise

Demand of interest - Rejection of application under Kar Vivadh Samadhan Scheme 1998 - Rejection on the ground that SCN already issued - Held that - In the meantime the respondents recovered the entire amount by encashing the Bank Guarantee on 13.10.2003. In view thereof it is not necessary to go into the issue and we are of the opinion that having regard to the peculiar facts of this case and also that the appellant has some arguable case on merits interest of justice would be subserved if no interest is demanded - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Liability of tax and Bank Guarantee
2. Kar Vivadh Samadhan Scheme, 1998 (KVSS) application rejection
3. Dismissal of writ petition
4. Recovery of entire amount by encashing Bank Guarantee
5. Direction to not recover interest

Analysis:

1. The judgment dealt with the liability of tax amounting to Rs. 35,44,614.55 and the appellant's provision of a Bank Guarantee to cover this liability. Various litigations were ongoing between the parties, and the appellant had filed a civil suit seeking restraint orders against the respondent-Union of India from encashing the Bank Guarantee. The introduction of the Kar Vivadh Samadhan Scheme, 1998 (KVSS) by the Government allowed defaulters to settle tax disputes by paying 50% of the demand. The appellant applied under this scheme, but the application was rejected due to the absence of a pending Show Cause Notice at the time.

2. The rejection of the appellant's application under the KVSS scheme was a key issue in the judgment. The court noted that the application was turned down because no Show Cause Notice was pending against the appellant at that time. This rejection was a significant factor in the subsequent legal proceedings.

3. Another issue addressed in the judgment was the dismissal of the writ petition filed by the appellant. The court mentioned that the writ petition had been dismissed by an impugned order, indicating that the appellant's legal challenges had faced setbacks in the lower courts.

4. The judgment highlighted the fact that the respondents had recovered the entire tax amount by encashing the Bank Guarantee on a specific date. Given this development, the court decided not to delve into certain issues and instead focused on ensuring that the appellant was not burdened with additional interest payments. The court acknowledged the appellant's arguable case on merits and directed the respondents not to recover any further amount towards interest from the appellant.

5. Lastly, the court issued a clear direction in the judgment regarding the recovery of interest. It emphasized that, considering the peculiar facts of the case and the appellant's potential merits, it was in the interest of justice to relieve the appellant from any further interest demands. This direction aimed to protect the appellant from additional financial obligations related to the tax liability and Bank Guarantee issue.