9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (6) TMI 518X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in December, 2007, in the opinion of this is Court decisive for a conclsion that the basic information provided in this case was also of a significant character. Therefore, it is held that the petitioners claim could not have been brushed aside in the manner that is sought to be urged by the respondents in the present case.. Given the nature of the discretion which the competent officials have under Rules 5 & 6.3 of the 2001 policy, all that can be said at this stage is that the denial of the petitioners’ representation on the ground of her being unable to establish identity and that she had only provided basic information which was insufficient to generate Interim Reward is not sustainable in law. As to whether the respondents would in the light of this finding wish to grant Interim Reward during the pendency of CESTAT proceedings as they appear to have done in the case of their own officers or await the decision of the CESTAT, is left to the discretion of the authorities who shall after considering all the materials available on record, pass appropriate orders and communicate the same directly to the petitioner within four weeks. - Decided in favour of appellant. - W. P. (C) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri Rajehs Tomar was already transferred and on phone Shri Tomar instructed the petitioners to remain in contact with Shri J.P. Singh, who had already given his mind to the Petitioners that nothing fruitful will be achieved by writing letters and that they should follow his instructions. As the terms of the said Shri Singh for giving blank Cheque-book duly signed by the Petitioners, was not acceptable as the same amounted to an unethical approach in the matter, they continued to follow up the matter with the appropriate authority of the Deptt. as mentioned in the succeeding paragraph. 4. In the counter affidavit, the respondents contend that there is no vested or entrenched right to claim a reward. Para 5 of the 2001 policy relied upon by the petitioner, it is argued, clarifies that grant of ex-gratia payment is a matter of discretion and cannot be claimed as a right. It is also contended that till final adjudication the rights, if at all, of such parties who claimed rewards are inchoate and Para 6.3 of the 2001 policy at best enable the Excise Authorities to consider payment of such amounts as may be deemed appropriate as interim or advance reward provided the concerned parti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ied out in three stages namely (i) Sourcing Import/Purchase of Nickel, (ii) Manufacturing So called Copper Nickel Alloys Ingots (iii) Post manufacturing Sale Testing of Copper Nickel Ingots They were also involved in the clandestine removal of goods without payment of Central Excise duty. The excess finished goods and the semi finished goods valued at Rs.3.60 Crore were seized under Rule 24 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 during the time of visit on 19.12.2007. After comprehensive investigations in which 62 statements has been recorded under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 till date and various searches conducted in follow up so far it has revealed that the unit had fraudulently availed the Cenvat Credit, since the unit does not have logistics to consume the same in the manufacturing of the final product and during the course of investigation conducted till date it has come to notice that the unit does not have the facility to use the Nickel in the production of so-called Copper Nickel Alloy Ingots but also the Electrolytic Nickel Cathode, Nickel Cathode FSC was not brought into their factory which was supposedly sold to M/s J.V. Industries Pvt. Lt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies had issued notices eliciting specific information and calling for documents relating to the sister concerns of JV Industries. It was stressed that in order to qualify for any entitlement, to reward, the material or information should be significant and not of a general nature which even otherwise the Central Excise Authorities can gather in the course of their routine activities. 9. The learned counsel argued that the nature of discretion vested in Paras 5 and 6.3 of the 2001 Policy is entirely dependent upon exercise of discretion by the concerned authority, which in this case was a Committee. He also relied upon a judgment of the Bombay High Court reported as Mr. X v. DGCEI, Mumbai: 2012(282) E.L.T. 363 and the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. C. Krishna Reddy: 2004 (163) E.L.T. 4(SC). 10. For facility of reference, the relevant provisions of the 20.06.2001 circular are extracted below:- 2. Scope of the Reward Guidelines 2.1 These guidelines will be applicable for grant of rewards to the informers and Government servants in respect of cases of seizures made and/or infringements /evasion of duty, etc., detected, under the provisions of the follow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es of town-seizures and Central Excise duty evasion cases, normally, no advance/ interim reward will be granted. However, in cases where the parties/persons, involved have voluntarily paid the amount of duty evaded during the course of investigation, admitting their liability, 25% of the voluntary deposits may be considered for payment as advance/ interim reward to the informers, after the issue of the show cause notice (SCN), provided the authority competent to sanction reward is satisfied that there is reasonable chance of confiscability/ infringement/ evasion, as the case may, being established in adjudication and sustained in appeal/revisionary proceedings. However, in such cases, the Government servants will become eligible for payment of advance interim reward only after adjudication of show cause notice resulting in confirmation of duty. 6.4 In exceptional cases, the Heads of Department, may having regard to the value of the seizures effected and magnitude of the evasion of duty/infringement detected and special efforts or ingenuity displayed by the officers concerned, sanction suitable reward on the spot to be adjusted against the advance/interim reward that may be sanct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing of the respondents dated 04.06.2009 and later reiterated on 22.06.2009. These two Minutes of Meeting clarified that the respondent authorities were not satisfied as to who was the informer. The said documents equally show that the officers concerned did not open the sealed envelope on either date. For this purpose, the Court had directed the production of the sealed envelope. The seal was removed; when opened the information provided by the petitioner, in writing, contained in the envelope, in Hindi along-with an undertaking bearing thumb impression were found - copies thereof were placed on record and sealed cover returned. The question, therefore, of identity of the informer, in the opinion of this Court, at least at this stage cannot arise because what was found in the sealed envelope corresponds entirely with the translation of the document placed on record along with the Writ petition as Annexure P-2. 13. The question then is, were the respondents right in rejecting the petitioners claim for interim Reward altogether. The second question is whether given the circumstances of this case, were the respondents correct in arguing that what was provided was only basic inform ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
