9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 1516X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s in Form-1 under Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 ("SVLDR Scheme") for settlement of dispute arising under indirect tax. There are 32 declarations challenged by firm and its partners in the present petition, primarily being the declaration made by firm. Insofar as, rejection of declarations made by the partners are concerned, same is consequential to the outcome of the application made by firm. We propose to deal with the applications made by the firm and thereafter propose to deal with the declarations made by the partners. 3. Rejection of application of declaration No. LD2612190005231:- 3.1 On 26th December 2019, Petitioner No.1-Firm filed an application in Form-1 under SVLDR Scheme. In the said application, it is stated that Central Excise Appeal is pending before this Court arising out of show cause notice dated 8th August 2007 in which the duty of Rs.4,97,618/- was demanded, redemption fine of Rs.21 lakh and penalty of Rs.4,97,618/- was also imposed. The duty demanded of Rs.4,97,618/- was covered by another show cause notice and Petitioner had availed the benefit of SVLDR Scheme for the said show cause notice and the Revenue has accepted the same. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s the amount of certain percentage of the amount of excise duty and not the amount of redemption fine. Once the applicant pays the amount of excise duty as required under the Scheme, the applicant is not liable to pay any further duty, interest or penalty with respect to the matters covered in the declaration. Therefore, in our view, the reasons given by Respondents in the application for rejecting the application that Petitioner is required to pay the redemption fine is not borne out from any provisions of SVLDR Scheme. 3.6 Once the applicant pays the amount of duty as per Scheme then Section 129 provides that the applicant shall not be liable to pay any further duty, interest or penalty with respect to the period covered in the declaration. Although in Section 129 (1) (a) of SVLDR Scheme redemption fine is per se not included, but the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs issued flyers, wherein it is stated that the benefit under the Scheme would be total waiver of interest, penalty and fine. To the same effect, is the press note dated 22nd August 2019 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, wherein it is clarified that there would be no other liability of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t it simply, what is required to be paid for availing benefits of the scheme is the prescribed percentage of central excise duty which is payable as per Section 3 of the Central Excise Act and when Section 129 (1) (a) which grants immunity/waiver refers to "any further duty", it would mean any payment other than central excise duty and, therefore, by accepting the contention of respondents, "redemption fine" would fall within the phrase "any further duty". Therefore even on this count, the rejection of the application by respondents is not justified. 3.8 The reliance placed by Respondents on paragraph 10 of the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Synpol Products Pvt. Ltd. (supra) to justify their rejections is not acceptable since the issue before us is interpretation of Section 121 (d) which defines "amount of duty" which is the phrase used in Section 123 which defines "tax dues", whereas the observations made in paragraph 10 of the Gujarat High Court is in connection with the definition of the phrase "amount in arrears" defined by Section 121 (c). In the instant case, the provisions of Section 121 (c) is not applicable since Petitioner No.1-Firm has filed an appeal which has n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd LD2612190006006 dated 26th December 2019. 5.1 All the above declarations were filed by Petitioner-Firm on 26th December 2019. 5.2 Respondents rejected the said application on the ground that as per report of DGCI dated 3rd February 2020, no enquiry was pending on 30th June 2019 since the earlier investigation had already culminated into issuance of show cause notice and has been adjudicated vide Order-In-Original dated 30th December 2011 and the said matter is presently pending before this Court. Therefore, declaration is not covered under the category of "investigation" in terms of Section 125 (1) (e) of SVLDR Scheme. 5.3 Petitioner had filed the declaration under the category of "enquiry, investigation or audit". The dispute sought to be resolved under SVLDR Scheme pertained to whether the goods manufactured by Petitioner-Firm were liable to be assessed under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act or under Section 4A of the said Act. On a challenge, by Larsen & Toubro Limited to whom the goods were supplied by Petitioner, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 394 of 2007 vide order dated 12th March 2007 permitted provisional clearance of the goods manufactur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he aforesaid 14 SVLDR Scheme application is not justified and same is quashed and set aside. 5.6 Respondents are directed to accept 14 applications mentioned above and, within four weeks from the date of uploading of the present judgment, issue SVLDR Scheme Form-2 intimating the payment, if any, to be made by Petitioner. Petitioner would make the payment of the amount intimated by Respondents within four weeks from the date of intimation and inform the same to Respondents who would issue SVLDR Scheme Form-4 within a period of four weeks from the date of such intimation by Petitioner. 6. Rejection of declaration by 8 partners for settlement of penalty demanded under show cause notice dated 8th August 2007 and show cause notice dated 3rd April 2008 of Rs. 1,25,000/- each and Rs.8,25,000/- each. Form SVLDRS-3 Nos. L030320SV300131, L030320SV300123, L030320SV300120, L030320SV300112, L030320SV300105, L030320SV300100, L030320SV300096, L030320SV300091, L030320SV300125, L030320SV300122, L030320SV300116, L030320SV300106, L030320SV300102, L030320SV300098, L030320SV300094 and L030320SV300090. 6.1 The aforesaid 16 applications by the partners of Petitioner No.1-Firm were rejected on the grou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
