TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 522X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and quantum of settlements under the Scheme. The CBIC has only clarified the meaning to be given to the word 'quantified' used under the Scheme to include thereunder any duty liability admitted (in writing) by a person (during an enquiry or investigation) as a 'written communication' spoken of under Section 121(r) of the Scheme. Also, ₹ 45,38,231/- is the exact amount quantified while issuing the subsequent show-cause-notice dated 06.09.2019. The reasoning given by the Designated Committee in the impugned order runs contrary to law. The Designated Committee was obligated to deal with the declaration filed by the petitioner, on merits. No discretion was vested in the Designated Committee to take a different view. Even though the Circular has not been referred to or dealt by the Designated Committee, by virtue of the clear language of Section 133 of the Scheme, it was further obligated to necessarily act in accordance with that law. The impugned order is set aside. In absence of any other dispute or objection, the matter is remitted to the Designated Committee to issue the necessary SVLDRS-3, within a period of thirty days from today - Petition a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri Gaurav Tyagi on 10.02.2016. The said Annexure-A contains the sales details made to different parties by our manufacturing unit M/s Magma Industries Ltd., during the period 01.04.2015 to 09.02.2016. In some case where Bill issued has been shown, we have issued proper bills and account for the said sale in our ledgers. Against sales in few cases bills for lesser amount have been issued due to adjustment of commission to commission agent and rate differences. Against rest entries we have neither issued any Sale Bill nor account for the said sales in our ledgers for payment of central excise duty. I also want to state that the name of G.S. Pharma has wrongly mentioned by our Accountant in the said sales register and party ledger, whereas the actual sale was made to M/s Trends Remedies Pvt. Ltd., Roorkee on the sale bills. These facts may also be checked. Q-7. What do you want to state about the central excise duty liability on the sales done by your company without issuing bills and without payment of duty? Ans: I admit that sales of finished goods shown against other entries except the sales made to M/s S.S. Enterprises, Gulzar (Kabadi) have been done by ou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me day. Further, during statement dated 13.05.2016 tendered before the Superintendent (Antievasion), Central Excise, Meerut, Shri Dinesh Garg, Director admitted/accepted the liability of Central Excise duty of ₹ 45,38,231/- involved on the sales done without issuing bills and without payment of duty. This acceptance of taxability remains tentative as further investigation was still going on. It is only after conclusion of investigation, final Tax liability was to be computed and communication to the party. We find that no such communication of final Tax liability was made by the department in the instant case on or before 30.06.2019. From the records, it is evident that they have not got anything in writing from the department about final tax liability so far. In this case, Tax liability was finally quantified in Show Cause Notice dated 06.09.2019 issued vide C.No.IV-CE(9)CP/M/08/2016/1289-1305 dated 06.09.2019 for demand of Central Excise duty amounting to ₹ 47,56,751/- (including ₹ 2,18,516/- + ₹ 45,38,235/-) and to appropriate an amount of ₹ 2,18,516/- already deposited by the party 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we find, un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his statement recorded, in writing, on 13.05.2016 further admitted duty avoidance by the petitioner, to the tune of ₹ 45,38,231/-. The total of these two admissions is ₹ 47,56,751/-. Section 121(r) does not, in any manner suggest and it therefore does not seek to limit the meaning of the phrase 'written communication' to be one written and issued by any Central Excise authority. Plainly, it refers to an amount of duty under any indirect tax enactment, reduced to writing. Once the amount of ₹ 45,38,231/- was thus reduced to writing before the Central Excise authority in an enquiry or investigation as defined under Section 121(m) of the Scheme and the petitioner did not dispute the same, the requirement of Section 121(r) read with Section 125(1)(e) read with 123(c) stood fulfilled. 12. While that is the interpretation that commends to us, the discussion cannot rest here. Section 133 of the Scheme, reads as below: 133 (1) The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs may, from time to time, issue such orders, instructions and directions to the authorities, as it may deem fit, for the proper administration of this Scheme, and such authorities ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ss. 3. Dispute resolution and amnesty are the two components of this Scheme. The dispute resolution component is aimed at liquidating the legacy cases locked up in litigation at various forums whereas the amnesty component gives an opportunity to those who have failed to correctly discharge their tax liability to pay the tax dues. As may be seen, this Scheme offers substantial relief to the taxpayers and others who may potentially avail it. Moreover, the Scheme also focuses on the small taxpayers as would be evident from the fact that the extent of relief provided is higher in respect of cases involving lesser duty (smaller taxpayers can generally be expected to face disputes involving relatively lower duty amounts). 4. .. 5. .. 6. .. 7. .. 8. .. 9. ..... 10. Further, the following issues are clarified in the context of the various provisions of the Finance (No.2) Act, 2019 and Rules made thereunder: a. .. b. .. c. ..... d. .. e. .. f. .. g. Cases under an enquiry, investigation or audit where the duty demand has been quantified on or before the 30th day of June, 2019 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ked lower to the CBIC, in so far as it is beneficial to the petitioner. Those revenue authorities, subordinate to the CBIC, cannot resist or protest or deviate from the interpretation of the Scheme made by the CBIC. To allow them to do so would be to render the mandate of Section 133 of the Scheme, redundant. 17. Once the CBIC clarified and thus enlarged the meaning of the word quantified to give effect to the purpose of Section 123(c) read with Section 125(1)(e) and Section 121(1)(r) of the Scheme - clearly to extend the benefit of the Scheme to more persons, there is neither any wisdom nor legal basis to curtail the same, contrary to the express intent of the CBIC. We have reached this conclusion applying the first principle crystalised/summarised by the Supreme Court in paragraph 12(1) in Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta Vs. IOCL (supra) . 18. We are also unable to accept the submission advanced by learned counsel for the revenue, that the Circular is contrary to the Scheme and therefore unenforceable. A similar submission had been advanced by the revenue in UCO Bank, Calcutta Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, W.B., (1999) 4 SCC 599 . In that case, it had been conte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... #39;quantification' made earlier since that show-cause-notice was issued after the cut-off date 30.06.2019, at the same time, the said document does indicate - other than the aforesaid Panchnama and admission made by the petitioner there was no other material with the revenue authorities to create any other or further demand. 21. Therefore, we unhesitatingly reach the conclusions - (i) the 'tax dues' of the petitioner stood 'quantified' for the purpose of Section 121(r), 123(c), 124(1)(d) and 125(1)(d) before the cut-off date 30.06.2019 at ₹ 45,38,231 and (ii) even if it may have been otherwise permissible to interpret those provisions in a manner that in the case of a pending enquiry, investigation or audit, no declaration may be filed unless the revenue authority had first communicated in writing the quantified amount of tax dues /duty demand proposed under the Act, yet, that interpretation would stand blocked, at the instance of the revenue authorities, by virtue of the binding interpretation of the law offered by the CBIC, under section 133 of the Scheme. 22. We also note, the Scheme is a piece of reform legislation. It commends a purp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
