9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (12) TMI 55X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es Pvt. Ltd., (hereinafter referred as 'FOMETA') had evaded Customs duty amounting to approximately Rs. 3 crores by contravening the conditions of ad hoc exemption Order No. 103/87 dated 30-3-1987 as amended. M/s. Sanjeevani had got the said exemption order from the Government of India exempting 50 Fodder Production Units to be imported by them subject to the condition that they would donate these machines to Bharat Krishak Samaj (BKS) within 15 days from their clearance and BKS would use them only for demonstration purposes and would not sell, transfer or dispose of these machines for a period of five years. M/s. Sanjeevani had imported and cleared these machines through the Port of Madras free of duty in terms of the said exemption order. Though M/s. Sanjeevani had produced documents before the Customs authorities showing donation of these machines to BKS but the same remained in their control and possession at their own sites and also at the site of M/s. FOMETA and were being utilised for commercial production of fodder and hence both the conditions of the ad hoc exemption Order were contravened. The exemption Order was for 50 machines but actually 56 machines had been imported ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also been given. It is averred in para 7 and 10.7 of the counter affidavit that only one party namely, Indian Grass Land and Fodder Research Institute, Jhansi, deposited the redemption fine of Rs. 2 lakhs in respect of one confiscated unit but in respect of remaining 55 units nobody came forward to clear the same on payment of redemption fine and duty and the penalty amounts could not be recovered from the persons concerned. The seized articles could not be auctioned as M/s. Sanjeevani had taken loans against the Fodder Production Units from financial institutions and such financial institutions have also claimed the units which had been hypothecated to them. Even though no duty, fine or penalty could be realised from the persons concerned but an amount of Rs. 10 lakhs was sanctioned and disbursed to the writ petitioner by way of reward. 4.It is important to note that in the counter-affidavit, it is nowhere admitted that the department conducted the investigation in the matter of import of machines and availing of exemption notification by M/s. Sanjeevani and M/s. FOMETA only on the basis of information furnished by the Writ Petitioner. Therefore, the main ground for claiming the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s cannot be given any retrospective operation. Taking the view that the amount directed to be paid by the learned Single Judge was on the higher side, it was directed that department should pay a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs within three weeks from the date of the receipt of the order and a further sum of Rs. 5 lakhs within three weeks thereafter. In the event the Department failed to pay the aforesaid amount within the time granted, it would pay the whole amount as per the order of the learned Single Judge. 7.Learned counsel for the appellant Union of India has submitted that the guidelines issued on 30-3-1985 regarding payment of award had been amended on 30-3-1989 and since in the present case the Collector of Customs had decided the matter subsequently on 5-3-1993, it is the amended guidelines which would be applicable and the payment had to be made in accordance with the said guidelines. Learned counsel has also submitted that reward is purely an ex-gratia payment, which subject to the guidelines, may be granted on the discretion of the competent authority and a decision regarding claim of amount is to be taken upon consideration of evidence after giving due regard to many factors and, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eward shall be examined and approved by a Committee of three senior officers and in case of grant of reward in excess of Rs. twenty lakh to an informer it has to be approved by a Committee consisting of the Head of Department, Director Preventive Operations and Additional Collector/Deputy Director Enforcement/Deputy Director, Anti Evasion/DRI. The aforesaid guidelines were reviewed and the existing reward policy was modified on 30-3-1989 and the same reads as under :- "The issue whether final reward should be given only after actual realisation of Central Excise duty, penalty, fine even if appeal/revision proceeding has concluded resulting in confiscation and/or confirmation of demand has also been under-consideration of the Government. Keeping in view all aspects of the matter, it has been decided that final reward should be paid only after actual realization of the Central Excise Duty/Customs Duty, penalty, fine etc. Para 63 of reward rules dated 30-3-85 stands amended accordingly". 10.The learned Single Judge and also Division Bench of the High Court have held that the reward has to be paid in accordance with the policy or guidelines issued on 30-3-1985 and the subsequent modi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o be taken into consideration while deciding a claim regarding grant of reward. These are matters exclusively within the domain of the authorities of the Department as they alone can weigh and examine the usefulness or otherwise of the information given by the informer. In the writ petition filed by the respondent, no details had been given on the relevant issues. If the grant of reward cannot be claimed as a matter of right it is not understandable as to how a Writ of Mandamus can be issued commanding the Government to give a particular amount by way of reward. Though this specific plea was taken in paras 18 and 21 of the counter-affidavit, yet neither the learned Single Judge nor the Division Bench adverted to this aspect of the matter. 13.It is well settled by a catena of decisions of this Court that a Writ of Mandamas can be granted only in a case where there is a statutory duty imposed upon the officer concerned and there is a failure on the part of that officer to discharge the statutory obligation. The chief function of the writ is to compel performance of public duties prescribed by statute and to keep subordinate tribunals and officers exercising public functions within t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... within three weeks thereafter. It was further directed that in case the department failed to comply with the aforesaid direction within the stipulated time, it will have to pay the rest of the amount as per the orders of the learned Single Judge. We do not find any justification for passing these kind of peremptory orders. It is not a case of any hardship having been caused like delay in making payment of compensation to victims of an accident or to an agriculturist whose land may have been acquired depriving him of his only source of livelihood. On merits also we are clearly of the opinion that the orders passed by the High Court are not only wholly unwarranted but are also without any legal basis and are consequently liable to be set aside. 15.The writ petitioner C. Krishna Reddy has also filed an appeal by special leave challenging the judgment and order dated 22-9-1999 of the Division Bench of the High Court passed in the Writ Appeal. Since we have held that the writ petitioner is not entitled to any further amount, the appeal preferred by him is liable to be dismissed. 16.In the result CA No. 7127 of 1999 filed by Union of India is allowed and the judgment and order dated 22 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
