TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2003 (8) TMI 227
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....seizure and investigation of cases under the Central Excises and Salt Act, Customs Act, Gold Control Order and Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, to prevent smuggling of gold and other articles through the coastal areas of Kerala, as well as in other parts of the country but with a view to create an incentive generally in the matter of detection of such violations, proposed to grant awards to those responsible to assist the Government in the same by being informants as well as Government servants and issued Guidelines therefor in the Notification dated 30-3-1985; this was said to have been followed by certain amendments in the matter of ceiling imposed, as to the quantum, by Notification dated 13-4-1989. The respondent, claimed to have an informant in the matter in question, worked out the information, supervised and executed an operation, which resulted in the seizure of 900 gold biscuits valued approximately at Rs 3.5 crores, which were concealed in an house. He also was said to have monitored the operation after seizure and on the basis of the action taken by the authorities of the Customs Department thereon it was possible for the said authorities to seize another 1600 gold biscu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of its due till payment. Hence, this appeal. 5. The learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the appellant contended that being a pure ex gratia payment, it should be strictly in accordance with the stipulations contained in the order itself and if the claimant, in any case, does not satisfy the stipulations therein, the Department not only can, in appropriate cases, consider such claims for any lump sum reward but not at the rates specified to the eligible class or category of claimants, on the basis of the value of seized goods. It was also urged that departmental officers of the departments such as Police, B.S.F. and Coast Guards etc. are envisaged under the Guidelines for being granted such rewards subject to the restrictions in Clause 7-1 and the directions issued to the contrary cannot be justified in law and being a matter pertaining to the sphere of policy, it cannot be modulated, modified or restructured so as to affect the very basis of the orders of the Government. The provisions contained in the amendment made on 13-4-89 was also urged to apply to the case. The learned Senior Counsel for the respondent, while adopting the reasoning of the High Court, rei....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Ministry. 3.2 ............................................................................................. 3.2.1 Informers and Government servants will be eligible for reward up to 20% of the duty, if any, sought to be evaded plus 20% of the fine and penalty levied/imposed and realized, provided the amount does not exceed 20% of the market value of the goods involved. 3.3 Seizures made, evasion of duty and other infringement detected under the Central Excises and Salt Act. 3.3.1 ............................................................................................ 3.4 Seizures under the Gold (Control) Act and cases of other violations detected under the Gold (Control) Act. 3.4.1 In case of seizures of gold bullion, the over all ceiling for rewards to informers and Government servants will be as indicated in serial No.1 of the Annex. 3.4.2 In other cases, whether seizure of articles of gold/ornaments, or of detection of "shortages", informers and Government servants will be eligible for reward up to 20% of the redemption fine and/or penalty imposed and realized, provided the amount does not exceed 20% of the market price ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... seized in the Customs area or Customs waters; and (e) freely convertible foreign exchange in the form of currency notes. 5.2 In other ("Smuggling") cases of seizures of contraband goods, advance reward up to 25% of the expected final reward may be paid immediately after seizure, if the authority competent to sanction reward is satisfied that the goods seized are reasonably expected to be confiscated on adjudication and the other is likely to be sustained in appeal/revision proceedings. 5.3 In all other cases, whether the seizure of evasion/infringement detected on the basis of documents, 25% of the expected final reward may be paid after the issue of a show cause notice provided the authority competent to sanction reward is satisfied that there is reasonable chance of confiscability/infringement/evasion, as the case may be, being established in adjudication and sustained in appeal/revisionary proceedings. 5.4 In exceptional cases, the Heads of Departments may, having regard to the value of the seizures effected and magnitude of the evasion or infringement detected and special efforts or ingenuity displayed by the officers concerned,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
................................................................................... 8.1.3 All case of grant of reward to Government servants in excess of the limits specified above should be examined and approved by a Committee consisting of the following :- Amount of reward for Govt. Servants Constitution of the Committee 1. Rewards in excess of Rs. 10,000/- but not exceeding Rs. One lac 1. Head of Department 2. Additional Collector; and 3. Senior most Deputy Collector/Dy. Collector all the Hqrs. 2. Rewards in excess of Rs. 1 lac and up to Rs. 5 lacs 1. Head of Department 2. Director, Preventive Operations; and 3. Additional Collector/Special Director in charge of the Hqrs. 3. Reward in excess of Rs. 5 lacs 1. Concerned Member of the C.B.E. & C. or G.C.A. as the case may and 2. DGRI/Director, Enforcement/Director, Anti-Evasion as the case may be, and 3. The Head of Department concerned." 7. It is not in controversy that an amendment came to be issued vide P.No. R-13011/5/89. Ad.v. of the Department of Revenue in April, 1989 limiting the total reward to Rs. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or lease or renewal for a long time and then dispose them of on the basis of a rule which had come into force later. This Court, while reversing such view taken by the High Court, held that in the absence of any vested rights in anyone, an application for a lease has necessarily to be dealt with according to the rules in force on the date of the disposal of the application, despite the delay, if any, involved although it is desirable to dispose of the applications, expeditiously. Therefore, the reward could not have been allowed in this case completely ignoring the amendments, which came into force in April, 1989, merely because the seizure was in February, 1989. That apart, under the Scheme final reward is postulated only on adjudication of the case resulting in confiscation of the goods as found stated in Clause 6 of the Guidelines and that should, therefore, be crucial and relevant date for consideration of award and, therefore, the Guidelines, as are in force on that date, will be really applicable and would be relevant. Consequently, the exclusion of the amendment, which was made in April, 1989, from consideration in this case, may not be proper, and the conclusion to the cont....