9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (11) TMI 554 - HC - CustomsReward money - legal right to claim a reward - Held that - reliance placed on the decision of the case Union of India and others Versus C. Krishna Reddy 2003 (12) TMI 55 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA relied upon, where it was held that By the very nature of things, no one has a legal right to claim a reward. The scheme itself shows that it is purely an ex gratia payment subject to guidelines and may be granted on the absolute discretion of the competent authority and cannot be claimed by anyone as a matter of right. In such circumstances the High Court committed manifest error of law in issuing a writ of mandamus directing the appellant to pay the amount to the respondent. The claim of the appellant for reward through a writ of mandamus is wholly misconceived. The same is not entertainable in terms of the Scheme framed as the reward is contemplated only on the final determination - the appellant has rightly not been found entitled to reward money as the Circulars contemplates the payment of reward money after actual realization of the Central Excise Duty, Customs Duty, penalty, fine etc. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the Letters Patent Appeal. 2. Entitlement to reward money based on the information provided by the appellant. 3. Applicability of the policy guidelines for reward payment. 4. Judicial review of administrative discretion in reward payment. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Condonation of Delay in Filing the Letters Patent Appeal The application for condonation of delay of one day in filing the present Letters Patent Appeal was considered. The court found sufficient cause for condonation of delay and accordingly allowed the Interlocutory Application No.3797 of 2015. Issue 2: Entitlement to Reward MoneyThe appellant, an employee of M/s. Punjab Fibers Limited, provided information to the Central Excise Department about the company's evasion of excise duty. Based on this information, investigations led to an adjudicating authority imposing additional excise duty and penalties on the company. However, the Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal later dropped the entire duty demand. Subsequent appeals by the Department up to the Supreme Court were unsuccessful. The appellant argued that the Department's choice of an incorrect forum (Delhi High Court) for initial appeals should not negate his entitlement to reward money. However, the court found no merit in this argument, noting that the Department acted under legal advice and pursued the matter diligently. Issue 3: Applicability of Policy Guidelines for Reward PaymentThe court examined the reward policy dated March 30, 1985, and its subsequent revisions. The policy specifies that reward is an ex-gratia payment subject to guidelines and at the discretion of the competent authority. The reward is payable in two stages: advance rewards and final rewards, with the latter contingent upon the successful conclusion of adjudication and appeal/revision proceedings. Since the Tribunal set aside the demand, the appellant could not claim the reward as the adjudication did not result in a successful conclusion confirming the demand. Issue 4: Judicial Review of Administrative Discretion in Reward PaymentThe court referenced the Supreme Court's judgment in Union of India v. C. Krishna Reddy, affirming that reward payments are ex-gratia and cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The court emphasized that a writ of mandamus could not be issued to compel reward payment, as it is a discretionary administrative decision. The appellant's reliance on the judgment in Ram Mohan Prasad’s case was found inapplicable, as it dealt with retrospective promotion and not reward payments. Conclusion:The Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed, affirming the learned Single Bench's decision. The court concluded that the appellant was not entitled to the reward money, as the policy guidelines require successful adjudication and realization of the demand, which did not occur in this case.
|
