9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (7) TMI 214X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... N. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT J.- Leave granted. The challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. The background facts in a nutshell are as follows: The appellant is a composite textile mill engaged in the manufacture of cotton yarn, man-made yarn, cotton fabrics and man-made fabrics as well as the processing amongst other activities. For the period from October, 1994, to February, 1997, the appellant was served with 14 show-cause notices for recovery of differential duty of approximately Rs. 50 lakhs. The said show-cause notices were adjudicated by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-II vide order-in-original Nos. 781/398/97 to 794/411/97 dated November 12, 1997, confirming the demands covered thereunder along with interest. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise also imposed penalty of Rs. 5,000. There being incorrect computation, he directed the Range Superintendent to verify figures and work out the fresh demand. The Range Superintendent re-worked the duty amount of Rs. 9,40,753 and issued a demand no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esignated authority vide its letter dated April 24, 2001, for reconsideration of the earlier order dated February 25, 1999, and give the appellant the benefit of the KVSS in the matter of the application filed under section 89 of the KVSS on January 28, 1999. The Superintendent of Central Excise, Range-II on January 18, 2002, informed the appellant that the application under section 89 of the KVSS was re-examined by the Chief Commissioner's Office, Mumbai, and since the KVSS no longer exists, the question of accepting the application does not arise. The appellant then made an application dated February 5, 2002, to the Chief Commissioner of Central Excise with a request for direction to the Commissioner concerned to look into the appellant's request for KVSS. As the order-in-original dated November 12, 1997/May 18, 1998, had attained finality on dismissal of the appellant's appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals) on June 29, 2001, the order was enforced and the appellant deposited the entire duty and penalty on October 7, 2004. The Office of the Superintendent of Central Excise vide letter dated November 3, 2004, asked the appellant to pay the interest of Rs. 11,58,647 under se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rity ought to have considered the matter. The High Court noted that the appellant kept quiet and did not take steps in challenging the order dated February 25, 1999, passed by the designated authority rejecting the declaration made by the appellant under the KVSS for some time but filed an appeal against the order dated February 25, 1999, passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) rejecting the appellant's appeal as time barred by filing an appeal before the Tribunal. By order dated November 29, 1999, the Tribunal allowed the appeal setting aside the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) and remanded the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals). Learned counsel for the respondents supported the order of the High Court. Undisputedly, the Tribunal held that the appeal was within time. That being so, for the purpose of the KVSS the appeal was to be treated as pending. In Commissioner of Income-tax v. Shatrusailya Digvijaysingh Jadeja [2005] 7 SCC 294, 298, this court has held as follows: "10. The basic point which we are required to consider in this case is the meaning of the word 'pending' in section 95(i)(c) of the said Scheme. 11. The object o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he DA had to determine the amount payable and for that purpose, he had to determine the tax arrears as well as the disputed amount as defined under section 87(f). Thus, the DA had to make an assessment of tax arrears, disputed amount and amount payable for each year of assessment; that the appeal was barred against the order under section 90 (see section 92); that such determination had to be done within 60 days from the receipt of the declaration and based thereon the DA had to issue a certificate. In other words, till the completion of the afore-stated exercise, the appellant could not have paid the amount of tax and, therefore, the appellant was not liable to pay interest as his liability accrued only after the ascertainment of the amount payable under section 90. In the present matter that exercise has been completed; that taxes have been recovered by the sale of lands; that amounts have been paid pursuant to the determination by the DA, may be under the orders of the High Court and, therefore, we do not wish to reopen the matter. 14. In the case of Dr. Mrs. Renuka Datla v. CIT [2003] 259 ITR 258, this court has held on interpretation of section 95(i)(c) that if the appeal or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
