2020 (7) TMI 419 - HC - Central Excise

Validity of declarations filed under Sabka Viswas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 - issuance of discharge certificates under Section 127(8) of the Finance Act, 2019 - Scheme was held to be not maintainable on the premise that the case involves the confiscation of goods and imposition of redemption fine and Section 129 of the Finance (No.2) Act, 2019 does not grant any relief from the confiscation or redemption fine - HELD THAT - The writ applicants could not be said to have got a fair opportunity of hearing before the concerned respondent. We are at one with Mr. Dhaval Shah, the learned counsel appearing for the writ applicants that the concerned respondent could not have fixed the personal hearing during the period of lockdown. We are of the view that one opportunity should be given to the writ applicants to put forward their case before the concerned respondent in person - We do not propose to go into the merits of the various issues raised as regards the claim to avail the benefit under the Scheme. We are of the view that all the relevant aspects of the matter should be explained by the writ applicants before the concerned respondent in person. The impugned communication in Form SVLDRS-3 is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted to the respondent No.3 herein i.e. the Designated Committee, Ahmedabad-South for fresh hearing on the issues in question - Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the declarations/applications filed under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019.
2. Compliance with the Scheme's payment requirements.
3. Opportunity for personal hearing during the COVID-19 lockdown.
4. Confiscation of goods and imposition of redemption fine under the Scheme.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Declarations/Applications Filed Under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019:
The writ applicants sought relief under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, by filing declarations in Form SVLDRS-1. The respondents rejected the applications, claiming that the cases involved confiscation of goods and imposition of redemption fine, which are not covered under Section 129 of the Finance (No.2) Act, 2019. The court observed that the declarations were held void on these grounds, and the applicants were called for a personal hearing which they missed due to the lockdown.

2. Compliance with the Scheme's Payment Requirements:
The applicants asserted that they had already made the necessary payments to avail the Scheme's benefits. They provided details of pre-deposits made as a condition precedent for filing appeals. However, the respondents contended that the payments claimed by the applicants could not be correlated with the demand raised in the show cause notice or the order-in-original. The court directed the respondents to verify the payment records and determine the actual amount deposited by the applicants.

3. Opportunity for Personal Hearing During the COVID-19 Lockdown:
The applicants argued that they were unable to attend the personal hearing scheduled on 07.05.2020 due to the COVID-19 lockdown and the closure of their office and the respondent's office. They requested a virtual hearing, which was not provided. The court agreed with the applicants that a fair opportunity for a personal hearing was not given during the lockdown and directed the respondents to provide a fresh hearing date.

4. Confiscation of Goods and Imposition of Redemption Fine Under the Scheme:
The respondents maintained that the Scheme does not provide relief from confiscation or redemption fine. The court did not delve into the merits of this issue but emphasized that the applicants should explain all relevant aspects before the concerned respondent during the fresh hearing.

Conclusion:
The court quashed the impugned communication in Form SVLDRS-3 and remitted the matter to the Designated Committee, Ahmedabad-South, for a fresh hearing. The respondents were directed to fix a new date for the personal hearing and inform the applicants in writing. The applicants were instructed to appear and make their submissions, after which the respondents should pass a fresh order in accordance with the law. The court also noted that if any additional payment was required, the department should accept it despite the expiration of the deadline, considering the ongoing litigation. The entire process was to be completed within six weeks from the receipt of the court's order.