9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (5) TMI 81X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Anturkar with Mr. Sugandh B. Deshmukh for the Petitioner. Mr V.M. Thorat with Ms. Annie Fernandes for Respondent ORAL JUDGMENT (PER DR. D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J.) : 1. The Petitioner has in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution sought a direction to the Respondents to release a reward which he claims to be due to him under a scheme of the Union Government in the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue issued on 20 June 2001. The Petitioner has moved these proceedings stating that he has submitted information to the Director General of Central Excise Intelligence (DGCEI) pointing out a case of service tax evasion by a company by the name of Punj Lloyd Ltd. According to the Petitioner on receipt of that information supplied by him, a notice to show cause was issued and an amount of Rs.11.33 Crores was recovered by the Government during the course of the investigation in 200506. However, though the recovery was made in 2006, the reward which is due to him has not been paid and it is on this basis that the Petitioner has moved this Court under Article 226. 2. An affidavit in reply has been filed in these proceedings by the Assistant Director working in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... subsequently, committees have been constituted for considering the sanction of rewards to informers and government servants. The jurisdiction of each committee is circumscribed by monetary limits. 4. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner has sought to place reliance on Clause 6.3 of the circular dated 20 June 2001. Clause 6 reads as follows 6. Payment of advance / interim reward 6.1 Advance /Interim reward may be paid to informers and Govt. servants upto 50% of the total admissible reward immediately on seizure in respect of the following categories of goods, namely : a) gold/silver bullion; b) arms and ammunition, explosives; and c) opium and other narcotic drugs. 6.2 In other case of outright smuggling, involving seizures of contraband goods, including foreign currency, advance/interim reward upto 25% of the total admissible reward may be paid to the informers and Govt. servants, immediately after seizure, if the authority competent to sanction reward is satisfied that the goods seized are reasonably expected to be confiscated on adjudication and the adjudication order is likely to be sustained in appeal /revision proceedings. 6.3 In all other cases, in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which the vigilance of the staff led to the seizure, special initiative, efforts and ingenuity displayed, etc. and whether, besides the seizure of contraband goods, the owners / organizers / financiers / racketeers as well as the carriers have been apprehended or not. 6. Now clause 6.1 provides for the payment of an interim or advance reward of upto 50% of the total admissible reward in the case of certain stipulated categories of cases. In other cases involving outright smuggling, including seizure of contraband goods including foreign currency, an award at the interim stage upto 25% of the total admissible reward is contemplated if the authority competent to sanction the reward is satisfied that the goods seized are reasonably expected to be confiscated on adjudication and the adjudication order is liable to be sustained in appeal or revision. For all other cases Clause 6.3 lays down that ordinarily no advance or interim reward will be granted. The Petitioner seeks to bring his case under the purview of Clause 6.3. Admittedly, neither Clauses 6.1 or 6.2 apply. However, even clause 6.3 requires the fulfillment of four conditions : (i) The persons or parties involved must have v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e course of the hearing, counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent submits that if at this stage, a reward were to be paid to the Petitioner, (even assuming that he is established to be the person who had supplied information which led to the detection of evasion), a situation may well result, if the assessee succeeds in the pending proceedings before the CESTAT that the department would have, in the mean time, parted with the reward to the Petitioner which cannot thereafter be recovered. We find merit in the contention which has been urged on behalf of the Respondents that granting rewards is not a matter of a vested right. What Clause 6.3 contemplates is that a case which does not fall under Clauses 6.1 or 6.2 may be considered for the payment of an interim award. The primary requirement is the payment of the duty evaded by the assessee admitting its liability and a satisfaction of the competent authority that there is a reasonable chance that the issue of confiscability, infringement or evasion would be established in adjudication or sustained in appeal or revision. These are not matters in which the Court can exercise its perception to determine as to whether there is a rea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
