2006 (1) TMI 148 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility for the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998.
2. Interpretation of the term "pending" in Section 95(ii)(c) of the Finance Act, 1998.
3. Applicability of previous Supreme Court judgments to the case.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Eligibility for the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998:
The petitioners, engaged in the manufacture of aerated water, soft drinks, and fruit-pulp based drinks, faced a rejection of their declaration under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-II. This rejection was based on the grounds that no appeal was pending before the appellate authority on the date of filing the petition, thus making the petitioners ineligible for the scheme as per Section 95(c) of the Finance Act, 1998.

2. Interpretation of the term "pending" in Section 95(ii)(c) of the Finance Act, 1998:
The primary issue was whether the appeal was "pending" before the appellate authority on the date of filing the declaration under the scheme. The court emphasized that Section 95(ii)(c) must be construed strictly, noting that the term "pending" means something undecided and not terminated. The court clarified that a proceeding is considered pending from the commencement until it is concluded by the forum that has taken cognizance of it. The court held that for the benefits of the scheme, the actual pendency of the appeal at the time of filing the declaration is required, not a fictional or deemed pendency.

3. Applicability of previous Supreme Court judgments to the case:
The petitioners' counsel relied on several Supreme Court judgments to support their claim. However, the court distinguished the present case from those precedents. In the case of Shatrusailya Digvijaysingh Jadeja, the Supreme Court dealt with time-barred revisions and emphasized the importance of the pendency of an appeal rather than its maintainability. In the case of Dr. (Mrs.) Renuka Datla, the Supreme Court focused on the definition of "tax arrears" and the pendency of appeals. The court found these precedents inapplicable to the present case, as the appeal had already been disposed of before the declaration was filed. The court also referred to the judgment in D. Saibaba, which dealt with a different context and emphasized that Section 95, with its double negative, must be given a plain meaning, leaving no room for equitable considerations.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the rejection of the petitioners' declaration under Section 88 of the Finance Act, 1998 did not suffer from any legal error. The appeal had already been disposed of before the declaration was filed, and thus, the petitioners were not eligible for the benefits of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.