9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (8) TMI 227X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lappuram. The appellant-Government not only authorized the State Police authorities to effect seizure and investigation of cases under the Central Excises and Salt Act, Customs Act, Gold Control Order and Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, to prevent smuggling of gold and other articles through the coastal areas of Kerala, as well as in other parts of the country but with a view to create an incentive generally in the matter of detection of such violations, proposed to grant awards to those responsible to assist the Government in the same by being informants as well as Government servants and issued Guidelines therefor in the Notification dated 30-3-1985; this was said to have been followed by certain amendments in the matter of ceiling imposed, as to the quantum, by Notification dated 13-4-1989. The respondent, claimed to have an informant in the matter in question, worked out the information, supervised and executed an operation, which resulted in the seizure of 900 gold biscuits valued approximately at Rs 3.5 crores, which were concealed in an house. He also was said to have monitored the operation after seizure and on the basis of the action taken by the authorities of the Custom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onth from the date of its order, the amount shall carry interest at 15% from the date of its due till payment. Hence, this appeal. 5. The learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the appellant contended that being a pure ex gratia payment, it should be strictly in accordance with the stipulations contained in the order itself and if the claimant, in any case, does not satisfy the stipulations therein, the Department not only can, in appropriate cases, consider such claims for any lump sum reward but not at the rates specified to the eligible class or category of claimants, on the basis of the value of seized goods. It was also urged that departmental officers of the departments such as Police, B.S.F. and Coast Guards etc. are envisaged under the Guidelines for being granted such rewards subject to the restrictions in Clause 7-1 and the directions issued to the contrary cannot be justified in law and being a matter pertaining to the sphere of policy, it cannot be modulated, modified or restructured so as to affect the very basis of the orders of the Government. The provisions contained in the amendment made on 13-4-89 was also urged to apply to the case. The learned Seni ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... istry. 3.2 . .. 3.2.1 Informers and Government servants will be eligible for reward up to 20% of the duty, if any, sought to be evaded plus 20% of the fine and penalty levied/imposed and realized, provided the amount does not exceed 20% of the market value of the goods involved. 3.3 Seizures made, evasion of duty and other infringement detected under the Central Excises and Salt Act. 3.3.1 ..... 3.4 Seizures under the Gold (Control) Act and cases of other violations detected under the Gold (Control) Act. 3.4.1 In case of seizures of gold bullion, the over all ceiling for rewards to informers and Government servants will be as indicated in serial No.1 of the Annex. 3.4.2 In other cases, whether seizure of articles of gold/ornaments, or of detection of shortages , informers and Government servants will be eligible for reward up to 20% of the redemption fine and/or penalty imposed and realized, provided the amount does not exceed 20% of the market price of the goods involved. 3.5 Cases of seizures/violations detected under FERA 3.5.1 .. 4. REWARD SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED AS A M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... satisfied that the goods seized are reasonably expected to be confiscated on adjudication and the other is likely to be sustained in appeal/revision proceedings. 5.3 In all other cases, whether the seizure of evasion/infringement detected on the basis of documents, 25% of the expected final reward may be paid after the issue of a show cause notice provided the authority competent to sanction reward is satisfied that there is reasonable chance of confiscability/infringement/evasion, as the case may be, being established in adjudication and sustained in appeal/revisionary proceedings. 5.4 In exceptional cases, the Heads of Departments may, having regard to the value of the seizures effected and magnitude of the evasion or infringement detected and special efforts or ingenuity displayed by the officers concerned, sanction and announce the grant of suitable rewards on the spot to be adjusted against the advance reward that may be sanctioned. 6. Final rewards will be paid after adjusting the advance rewards, if any, paid in the mentioned/indicated in proceedings paras. 6.2 In respect of the goods described in para 5.1, the remaining 50% of the reward will be sanctioned both to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. Rewards in excess of Rs. 1 lac and up to Rs. 5 lacs 1. Head of Department 2. Director, Preventive Operations; and 3. Additional Collector/Special Director in charge of the Hqrs. 3. Reward in excess of Rs. 5 lacs 1. Concerned Member of the C.B.E. C. or G.C.A. as the case may and 2. DGRI/Director, Enforcement/Director, Anti-Evasion as the case may be, and 3. The Head of Department concerned. 7. It is not in controversy that an amendment came to be issued vide P.No. R-13011/5/89. Ad.v. of the Department of Revenue in April, 1989 limiting the total reward to Rs. 1 lakh for seizure and to a total limit of Rs. 10 lakhs in one s career, though there was dispute about its relevance and applicability to the claim of the respondent on the ground that it had no retrospective application to the seizure effected on 24-2-1989, in this case. 8. The decision of the Division Bench rendered in affirmance of the one rendered by the Single Bench suffer from a serious infirmity in not adverting properly to the basics and fundamentals of the Schem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y. Therefore, the reward could not have been allowed in this case completely ignoring the amendments, which came into force in April, 1989, merely because the seizure was in February, 1989. That apart, under the Scheme final reward is postulated only on adjudication of the case resulting in confiscation of the goods as found stated in Clause 6 of the Guidelines and that should, therefore, be crucial and relevant date for consideration of award and, therefore, the Guidelines, as are in force on that date, will be really applicable and would be relevant. Consequently, the exclusion of the amendment, which was made in April, 1989, from consideration in this case, may not be proper, and the conclusion to the contrary by the High Court, cannot be sustained. 9. The interpretation placed as though the restrictions in Clause 7 will have no relevance to the officers other than the officers specified of the Department of Central Excise/Customs cannot be justified, either on the language of the Guidelines or on the conspectus of the Scheme for rewards. The classification made is between informers on the one hand and Government servants on the other - and not with reference to any particular ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
