9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (10) TMI 248X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the respondent herein in each of the Writ Appeal. Writ Petition Nos. 4456 to 4463 of 1999 were filed questioning the show cause notices dated 26-10-1994; 7-11-1994; 7-11-1994; 3-7-1995; 6-4-1995; 3-7-1995; 3-7-1995 and 3-7-1995 respectively issued by the Customs Authority, while W.P. No. 4932 of 1999 was filed against the final order of adjudication dated 18-2-1999 made by the Commissioner of Customs (Designated Authority), Customs House, Chennai in terms of Section 87(m)(ii)(b) of the Finance Act. 3. The following are the few facts leading to the controversy in Writ Appeals :- The first respondent (herein after referred to the petitioner) is engaged in the business of manufacture and export of Ready-made Garments. For the manufacture and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Rs. 1,50,00,000/- made even before the demand or show cause notices were issued, the explanation to Section 87(m)(ii)(b) of The Finance Act, 1998, cannot be made applicable to exclude the petitioner from the benefit of the Scheme. Insofar as the challenge as to the final adjudication, the learned Judge held that in as much as the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the scheme, the final adjudication proceedings is also to be set aside. Accordingly, the orders impugned in W.P. No. 4932 of 1999 was also set aside. Aggrieved by the above common order, the present appeals have been filed by the Union of India. 4. We have heard Mr. K. Gunasekar, Senior Central Government Standing Counsel for appellants and Mr. Habibulah Basha, Senior Cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e amount of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- was paid prior to the demand notices and therefore, the impugned orders rejecting the declaration are contrary to the very provisions of Section 87(m)(ii)(b) of the Act. He would further submit that after the payment of the said amount, in fact, barring a sum of Rs. 91,62,370/-, the remaining amount was adjusted in Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme in respect of other transactions made by the very same assessee. Having made applicable to the benefit of the scheme in respect of other transactions, the appellants, deprived the benefit of the scheme to the petitioner in respect of show cause notices covered in the writ petition. He would also submit that even otherwise, admittedly, a sum of Rs. 91,62,370/- were kept under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) the amount of duties (including drawback of duty, credit of duty or any amount representing duty), cesses, interest, fine or penalty which constitutes the subject matter of a demand notice or a show cause notice issued on or before the 31st day of March, 1998 under that enactment but remaining unpaid on the date of making a declaration under Section 88, but does not include any demand relating to erroneous refund and where a show cause notice is issued to the declarant in respect of seizure of goods and demand of duties, the tax arrear shall not include the duties on such seized goods where such duties on the seized goods have not been quantified. Explanation - Where a declarant has already paid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ii) of 87(m) of the Act, which states that an amount of duty remaining unpaid on the date of declaration under Section 88 of the Act should constitute the subject matter of demand notice or show cause notice. The legislation is, therefore, intended that only in case where duty is paid pursuant to the demand notice or show cause notice issued on or before 31-3-1998, the assessee could be denied to the benefit of the Scheme. A combined reading of provisions of Section 87(m)(ii)(b) and Section 88(f) of the Finance Act, 1998, in our considered view would show that only those payments made either voluntarily or under protest, pursuant to the demand notice or show cause notice would alone be brought under the explanation to the above provisions o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... neous head of revenue deposit no. 286 and kept under suspense account. From this duty amount of Rs. 46,82,904/- and penalty amount of Rs. 13.5 lakhs which amount to a total of Rs. 60,32,904/- has been adjusted in KVS Scheme. The balance amount of Rs. 91,62,370/- is kept under the suspense account of Revenue Deposit No. 286 dated March 13, 1999." 11. Admittedly, the revenue had adjusted the above amount and given the benefit of KVS Scheme to the very same assessee on certain transactions and in respect of some declarations in question alone the authority had rejected the claim of the assessee. It must be mentioned here that the amount of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- was paid by the petitioner prior to show cause notice issued in all the cases covered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
