9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 166X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, as valid declaration; (C) That Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, directing the Respondents, their servants and agents to accept the declarations filed by the petitioners, which have been rejected vide Orders submitted at Annexure-I & J to the Petition and further directing the Respondents, their servants and agents to issue 'Statement of estimated amount payable by the petitioner in the Scheme' in Form SVLDRS-3 under Section 127 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2019 and thereafter, on payment of the estimated amount by the petitioner no. 1, to issue Discharge Certificates in Form SVLDRS-4 under Section 127(8) of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2019 to petitioner nos. 1 to 4; (D) Such Further relief(s) as deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be granted in the interest of justice;" 2. Facts of the present case are as under: 2.1 The petitioner no. 1 is a partnership firm, having place of business at Near Bhikshuk Gruh, Vallabh Nagar, Odhav Road, Odhav, Ahmedabad, Gujarat - 382410. The petitioner nos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty of Rs. 20,00,000/- was also imposed on M/s. Janta Steel Traders and Penalty of Rs. 1,40,000/- was imposed on M/s. Shalin Corporation and Goods seized at the premises of M/s. Shalin Corporation were also ordered to be confiscated, however, these goods were allowed to be redeemed by M/s. Shalin Corporation on payment of a redemption fine of Rs. 40,000/-. 2.6 Being aggrieved by the Order-in-Original, filed an appeal before the Hon'ble Customs, Excise and Gold Appellate Tribunal, Bombay (CEGAT), against the said Order-in-Original. 2.7 During the pendency of appeal before the Hon'ble CEGAT, provisions for the Customs and Central Excise, Settlement Commission were introduced in the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Section 32PA was also introduced with effect from 12.5.2000 providing that any person who had filed an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal on or before 29.2.2000 and which was pending would also be entitled to make an application to the Settlement Commission to have his case settled. 2.8 The petitioners, after withdrawing the appeal from the Hon'ble CEGAT, filed application before the Hon'ble Settlement Commission. Petitioner no. 1 initially admitted duty liability of Rs. 15,44, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nting of relief from confiscation and Redemption Fine did not arise in the case of the petitioner no. 1. It was, therefore, requested that the application of the petitioner under SVLDRS may be considered and processed further. 2.15 The petitioners nos. 2 and 3 also appeared before the Designated Committee on the date and time fixed for Personal Hearing on 19.11.2019 and also submitted written reply to the show cause notice dated 13.11.2019, inter alia pleading that the provisions of Section 124(1)(b) of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2019 do not provide any condition that the co-noticee can't avail the benefits of the scheme till such time that the duty demand is not settled by the main noticee. 2.16 The Designated Committee rejected the applications filed by the petitioner no. 1 in Form SVLDRS-1 dated 14.10.2019 on the ground of ineligibility with the remarks 'Confiscation and decided by Settlement Commission'. The Designated Committee also rejected the applications filed by the petitioners No. 2 and 3 in Form SVLDRS-1 dated 14.10.2019 on the ground of ineligibility with the remarks 'Conoticee, main noticee involves confiscation'. 2.17 The petitioners No. 1, 2 and 3 again filed appli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commission was rejected by this Hon'ble Court vide Order dated 16.7.2008. The petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 25380 of 2008 filed by the petitioners before the Hon'ble Supreme Court also came to be dismissed as withdrawn on 24.10.2008. Thus, the case or the application of the petitioners is not pending before the learned Settlement Commission. Therefore, the application of the petitioner no. 1 is not ineligible under Section 125(1)(g) of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2019. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Parth Divyeshwar learned advocate for the respondents would submit that Section 125(1)(g) of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2019 simply stipulates that the person who has filed an application in the Settlement Commission is not eligible to make a declaration under the scheme. 4.1 Mr. Divyeshwar would further submit that in the instant case, it is an undisputed fact that the petitioner had filed an application before the Settlement Commission for settlement of the case and therefore he is not eligible to make the declaration under the scheme in terms of the above provisions of law. As regards the reliance on the Board's clarifications and directions is concerned, the same is misplaced f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
