9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 456X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tter dated 8.2.1999 and after ascertaining its legality and validity to quash and set aside the same. 2. The petitioners are also seeking a writ of mandamus or any writ or direction in the nature thereof directing the respondents to forthwith accept and act upon the petitioners' declaration furnished under a scheme which is styled as Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 and to pass the requisite orders in terms thereof. In other words, a long standing dispute between the petitioners and the Department be settled in accordance with the Scheme.' 3. The petitioners state that by the impugned order dated 8.2.1999, the Office of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai IV, informed the petitioners that Declaration No.46/98, dated 10121998 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er dated 8.2.1999 (impugned letter) also disputes this position. Hence, there is an application fully maintainable and covered by the Scheme. When this writ petition was placed before us, Mr. Kamdar, learned Senior Counsel appearing in support of the same, relied on two Judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The first in the case of Swastika Enterprises and Ors. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and Ors., reported in (2015) 10 SCC 573 and the later was a Judgment in the case of NRC Ltd. Vs. Union of India, reported in 2015 (325) E.L.T. 474 (S.C.). 5. In both these Judgments, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that requirement of availing of the Scheme and provided by Section 95 of the Finance Act, 1998 cannot be said to be not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Department. Moreover, the petitioners have filed an appeal against the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, dated 9.11.1998. The petitioners have thus disputed the demand and the appeal is pending. 6. In the light of the above factual position and the two Judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, it is conceded equally by the Department that their stand, as contained in the impugned letter, is unsustainable in law. The matter is covered by the said two Judgments. In the circumstances, we allow this writ petition and quash and set aside the impugned letter dated 8.2.1999. We direct that the declaration of the petitioners shall now be proceeded with and decided in accordance with law. 7. On 5.5.1999, an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
