2020 (7) TMI 117 - HC - Central Excise

Sabka Vishwas (Legaly Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 - validity and legality of the rejection of the petitioner's scheme - Last date for making payment arrived - HELD THAT - It would not be appropriate for us to confirm the quantification of balance final estimated amount payable under the scheme at ₹ 55,56,045.00, especially when it is the petitioner's case that respondent No. 3 Committee has failed to consider the petitioner's case in the light of the interpretation and application of the above provisions and has not heard the petitioner before confirming the balance final demand. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit the amount of ₹ 55,56,045.00 with the revenue within a period of one week from today. The order dated 23.6.2020 records the last date for making payment was likely to be extended further beyond 30.6.2020, however we are not being informed of the same today. We permit the petitioner to deposit the same within a period of one week from today. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to rejection of Sabka Vishwas Form SVLDRS-3 under central excise duty.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a manufacturing unit, faced issues regarding central excise duty payments for pressure vessels. A show-cause notice was issued, leading to a Settlement Commission order confirming the duty payment. The petitioner appealed, but the Commissioner upheld the duty payment. Subsequently, the Sabka Vishwas Scheme 2019 was introduced, allowing for declaration of tax dues. The petitioner applied under the scheme, but the Designated Committee quantified a higher amount payable, leading to the current challenge.

The main contention revolved around the interpretation of provisions of the Finance Act, 2019. The petitioner argued that the final payable amount under the SVLDR Scheme should be reduced by pre-deposits made earlier. The respondent, representing the Revenue, opposed this claim, stating that the pre-deposits should not be considered for relief under the scheme. The Designated Committee's decision was based on this interpretation, leading to a dispute.

After considering the arguments, the Court found that the Designated Committee failed to properly interpret the provisions and hear the petitioner's case before quantifying the final amount payable. The Court directed the petitioner to deposit the disputed amount within a week and ordered the Committee to reevaluate the liability and issue a fresh order accordingly. If the final liability was less than the deposited amount, a refund was to be provided promptly.

In conclusion, the petition was disposed of with specific directives regarding the disputed amount, emphasizing the need for a fair assessment based on the correct interpretation of the relevant provisions.