9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 930X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as to be pleaded and proved. Respondents officials had visited the premises of the petitioner during the investigation. The larger issue is involved in the writ petition. The petitioner has challenged the Notification which the petitioner claims that the partial exemption under Sr.No.107 of Notification No.50/2017-Cus. dated 30 th June 2017 r/w. Concessional Rate of Duty Rules, 2017 is available for Denatured Ethyl Alcohol used for manufacture of Ethyl Amine. The law permits payment of amount on the basis of own ascertainment of duty during the investigation and prior to the service of notice. The question is payment made by the petitioner of Rs.2.5 Crores is voluntary or involuntary. For concluding the existence of coercion greater ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er has fled the instant writ petition for declaration and striking down the word excisable in the phrase used in the manufacture of excisable goods appearing in Column No.3 of Sr. No.107 of the Notification No.50/20170-Cus. dated 30th June 2017 as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Petitioner also seeks declaration that the Denatured Ethyl Alcohol imported by the petitioner effective from 01/07/2017 is eligible for partial exemption from payment of BCD Sr.No.107 of Notification No.50/2017-Cus. dated 30th June 2017 even when not used for manufacture of excisable goods falling under 4th Schedule to the Central Excise Act, 1944. The petitioner is also challenging the eligibility and validity of forcible collection of Rs.2.5 Crore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecorded the events that actually took place on 9th and 10th February 2021. The draft letter dated 10th February 2021 addressed to respondent Nos.2 and 3 stating inability and displeasure while making payment of Rs.2.5 Crores prior to issuance of show cause notice and also stating not to consider the payment as acceptance of the liability also proves that the payment is not voluntary but because of the force employed. The petitioner submitted the draft letter dated 10th February 2021 to the respondents at the time of making payment of Rs.2.5 Crores. However, the same was not accepted by them. On the contrary, the respondents forced the petitioner to modify the letter which suits their version. This modified letter is only relied by the respo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Limited Versus Union of India 2016 (44) STR 481 (Del.) Paras.106-114. 5. Mr. Jetly, learned Senior Advocate for the respondents submits that the payment has been made by the petitioner voluntarily. No coercion was exerted by the respondents upon the petitioner. The petitioner wrote a letter dated 10th February 2021 to the respondent No.3 thereby accepting the issue raised by the officers and signaling their intent to pay the unpaid amount of customs duty on the basis of their own ascertainment of such duty. The petitioner also requested the respondents to consider the payment towards differential duty liabilities and submitted that it will make payment of differential duty liability in due course and on 10th February 2021 a demand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) G.S.T.L. 17 (Ker.). 2. Suresh Kumar P. P. Versus Dy. Director, Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI), Thiruvananthapuram 2021 (50) G.S.T.L. J73 (S.C.). 3. Bhumi Associate Versus Union of India 2021 (46) G.S.T.L. 36 (Guj.). 4. Yasho Industries Ltd. Versus Union of India 2021 (54) G.S.T.L. 19 (Guj.). 5. Nino Chaks (P) Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs (General) 2020 (371) E.L.T. 701 (Del.). 8. We have considered the submissions. 9. Coercion is committing or threatening to commit any act forbidden by the Indian Penal Code or detaining or threatening to detain, to the prejudice of any person whatever, the property of another. 10. Coercion has to be pleaded and proved. Respondents officials ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tter also further goes on to state that it will make payment of remaining differential duty liability in due course. The contents of the said letter do not dispel exercise of duress or coercion. One of the internal email communications between the officers of the petitioner suggests directing an employee to prepare a demand draft of Rs.2.5 Crores. The said email is 2.40 p.m. on 10th February 2021, whereas one email at 7.42 a.m. on February 10, 2021 suggests that the consultant has advised not to pay the duty. The draft letter prepared by the petitioner is not forwarded to the respondents wherein the petitioner wish to contest the issue on merit. 13. At this interlocutory stage, it will be difficult to conclude about the exercise of coerc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
