9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 456X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and covered by the Scheme - petition allowed. - WRIT PETITION NO. 963 OF 1999 - - - Dated:- 27-2-2017 - S.C. DHARMADHIKARI B.P. COLABAWALLA, JJ. Mr. S.U. Kamdar, Senior Counsel with Mr. Y.S. Kamdar, Mr. N.C. Parekh, Mr. S.A. Vyas, Mr. N.J. Marjadi Ms Palak Patel i/by M/s. Mansukhlal Hiralal Co. for the Petitioners. Mr. Swapnil Bangur with Mr. Sham V. Walve for Respondent No.2. ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Shri S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. ) : 1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are seeking a writ, order or direction calling for the papers and proceedings pertaining to order/letter dated 8.2.1999 and after ascertaining its legality and validity to quash and set aside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e benefit of the Scheme cannot be extended to the declarant. 4. One of the grounds raised to challenge this order by the petitioners is that the declaration was maintainable. The petitioners are fully eligible to avail of the Scheme by filing a declaration because there is an admitted tax arrears, according to the excise authorities, in the above sum and prior to 1.4.1998. The alleged tax arrears have not attained finality inasmuch as the petitioners have disputed the same by filing an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). Importantly, the Department admitted that a sum of ₹ 55 lakhs recoverable as tax arrears prior to 1.4.1998 has been disputed. The letter dated 8.2.1999 (impugned letter) also disputes this position. He ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt, the Department has already encashed the Bank Guarantees furnished by the petitioners from time to time in the sum of ₹ 44,18,233.81. The Department's case is that balance excise duty of ₹ 54,67,867.98 is payable. The petitioners have disputed this position. They have said that in law they are not liable to pay any duty whatsoever and the claim in that regard of the Department is time barred. Thus, the petitioners' stand is that a mere demand notice is not a show cause notice and it cannot be treated as a show cause notice. That is how initially it was pointed out that the position remains the same and they are not bound and liable to merely comply with the demand notice of the Department. Moreover, the petitioners ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
