9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (6) TMI 518X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Central Board of Excise & Customs. It is contended that the petitioners furnished information to one Shri Rajesh Tomar, the then Superintendent (Central Excise (Anti Evasion Branch) in the Central Excise Commissionerate, Delhi-II, relating to duty evasion by M/s JV Industries which eventually led to the search and seizure operation at the premises of that concern on 19.12.2007. The petitioners submit that they claimed, by a letter dated 17.07.2008, the reward on account of the information furnished by them being useful to the Department. 3. In the pleadings it is contended that written information was provided by the petitioner: a translation of the petitioner's letter dated 12.11.2007 has been annexed to the pleadings. It is alleged that on 27.08.2008, the petitioner received a letter from the Assistant Commissioner stating that no interim reward could be paid in terms of the prevailing policy. The petitioners rely upon several letters and representations- including an appeal filed in this regard. They also relied upon the responses submitted by the Central Excise Authorities, in response to the queries made under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI), at two separate and di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er the detailed investigation conducted against the party. The information provided by the informer, if any, was just a basic information and it could not be co-related with the investigations or show cause notice issued by the department." 5. Apart from reiterating the submissions made in the grounds and placing reliance on the terms of 2001 Policy as reiterated in 2004, learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out the reply given sometime in 2010 by the respondent to the queries made under the RTI. The relevant extract of the said reply how the raid was conducted, the basis and subsequent assessment of JV industries was carried out is apparent from the following extract:- "Working on a basic information that the unit M/s J.V. Industries Pvt. Ltd., Delhi is engaged in the manufacturing of Copper Ingots, Copper Rods & Copper Wires and showing usage of Nickel as an input which was not being used in the manufacture of their final product. The information was developed by S.I.O. with assistance of I.O. and some more documents were gathered to verify the authenticity of the basic information. Accordingly, a strategy was planned as to how this information is to be carried forward to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learly brought out the fact that information was given to Shri J. P. Singh who inturn passed it on to Shri Rajesh Tomar and Shri Pankaj Kudeshiya who were instrumental in carrying on further investigation. 7. The learned counsel for the revenue urges that this Court should not interfere with the determination of the respondents especially in view of the Minutes of Meeting dated 04.06.2009 attended by an Additional Commissioner and two Assistant Commissioners who had examined the entire record. It was submitted that this view was reiterated in the subsequent Minutes of Meeting dated 22.06.2009 when the authorities were satisfied that the circumstances of the case did not warrant the release of any interim Reward. It was emphasised that the identity of the person, i.e. as to who was the informer could not be established- as is evident from the first Minutes of Meeting dated 04.06.2009. 8. It was urged by learned counsel for the revenue that even though the counter affidavit gave the impression that Mr J. P. Singh was not involved, the fact remains that he was not posted in the Anti Evasion Department at the relevant time. Reiterating that the information provided in this case by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lved for the Government servants in working out the case, the difficulty in securing the information, the extent to which the vigilance of the staff led to the seizure, special initiative, efforts and ingenuity displayed, etc. and whether, besides the seizure of contraband goods, the owners/organizers/financiers/racketeers as well as the carriers have been apprehended or not. 5.2 Reward should not be sanctioned for routine and normal nature of work. 6. Payment of Advance/ Interim Reward 6.1 Advance/Interim reward may be paid to informers and Government servants up to 50% of the total admissible reward immediately on seizure in respect of the following categories of goods, namely :- (a) gold/ silver bullion; (b) arms and ammunition, explosives; and (c) opium and other narcotic drugs. 6.2 In others cases of outright, smuggling, involving seizures of contraband goods, including foreign currency, advance/interim reward up to 25% of the total admissible reward may be paid to the informers and Government servants, 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es prevailing in the three departments and outlined the eligibility for granting rewards to informants. Para 4 deals with the quantum and ceiling of rewards; Para 5.1 importantly states that reward is purely an ex gratia payment, which is dependent on guidelines and can be granted at the absolute discretion of the authority competent to do so. Para 6.3 which the Court is concerned with in this case, especially in this case, provides the authorities with the power to release part of the admitted liability and which has been voluntarily paid, as interim Award to the informers after issuance of show cause notice to the assessee. There is no doubt in this case that a show cause notice was issued; equally there may be no dispute that the overriding conditions i.e. para 5 and para 6.3 itself state that grant of reward is dependent upon exercise of discretion. The question, therefore, is whether in the given circumstances having regard to the pleadings and the materials on the record and made available to the Court, the exercise of discretion in refusing the Interim reward was justified. 12. As adverted to previously, in the pleading, the petitioners had urged before the Court that infor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated that the information was given to Shri J. P. Singh, Inspector, who "Provided the input about the information to the officer at Sr. No. 5" i.e. Rajesh Tomar and "provided key-data to the officer at Sr. No.6" i.e. Pankaj Kudeshiya and "played a key role in arresting Shri Sushil Kumar Jain the prime accused. Attended to court related matters". 14. Likewise, Sl.No.5 reference to whom has been made is adverted as Rajesh Tomar, Superintendent who is said to have "gathered and developed an information and later deployed the officers Shri Pankaj Kudeshiya and Shri B. M. with senior officers." 15. The pleadings in this case are clear that the petitioner provided what is characterised by the respondents themselves as 'basic information'. During the submissions, learned counsel had relied upon certain show cause notices sought to have been issued to JV Industries' sister concern to show that parallel line of investigation existed. Yet the proximity of the information provided by the petitioner on 12.11.2007 and the subsequent raid, which took place in December, 2007, in the opinion of this is Court decisive for a conclsion that the basic information provided in this case was also of a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
