9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 166X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 06.03.2020 under the RTI Act would reveal that the benefit of the circular particularly para 10 has been extended to others. Once it is held that the petitioner no. 1 was entitled to the benefit of the scheme, petitioner nos. 2 to 4 would automatically be held entitled to the benefit thereof. The respondents are directed to accept the declarations filed under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme 2019 and issue consequential statements of estimated amount payable in Form SVLDRS-3 and on payment of the estimated amount by petitioner no. 1 issue discharge certificates in Form SVLDRS-4 to the petitioner nos. 1 to 4 - petition allowed. - HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV AND HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA Appearance: For the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3,4 : Kaivan M Dastoor (9322) For the Respondent(s) No. 1,2 : Mr PY Divyeshvar (2482) For the Respondent(s) No. 3 : Notice Served ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV) 1. By way of the present petition, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs: (A) That Your Lordships may be pleased to admit this Petition. (B) Tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. 2.3 The petitioner no. 1 being a Small Scale Industry, was eligible for SSI exemption of Notification No. 1/1993-CE dated 28.02.1993 issued under the Central Excises Act, 1944, and accordingly, the petitioner no. 1 availed the benefit of said Notification during the years 1994-95 and 1995-96 and no Central Excise duty was paid by the petitioner no. 1 during these two years. 2.4 The Central Excise authorities conducted inquiries and investigation against the petitioner no. 1 in September, 1995 which resulted in issuance of show cause notice F.No. V.72/15-156/ OA/95 dated 08.03.1996 wherein total Central Excise duty of Rs. 39,65,667/- (Rs. 39,40,861/- + Rs. 24,806/-) was demanded from the petitioner, besides proposing imposition of penalty and confiscation of seized goods. Action was also proposed against the petitioner No. 2 to 4. 2.5 The petitioners and other noticees of the aforesaid show cause notice participated in the departmental adjudication proceedings, which resulted in passing of the Order-in-Original No. 42/Commr/Ahd-I/97-98 dated 27.2.1998 (issued on 29.5.1998) wherein duty demand of Rs. 39,65,667/- (Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case was pending before the CEGAT was also ordered, while allowing adjustment of the said deposit towards the finally settled amount of Rs. 32,17,340/-. Penalties of Rs. 1 Lakh each were imposed on petitioner nos. 2 to 4, i.e. three partners of the petitioner no. 1 firm. 2.10 The Central Government, in exercise of the powers conferred by section 132 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2019, made the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme Rules, 2019 vide Notification No. 5/2019-Central Excise (NT) dated 21.8.2019. 2.11 The Central Government, vide Notification No. 4/2019-Central Excise (NT) dated 21.08.2019 appointed 01.09.2019 as the date on which the SVLDR Scheme, 2019 would come into force. 2.12 The petitioner nos. 1, 2 and 3 filed separate applications on 14.10.2019 under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, in the prescribed Form SVLDRS-1. Petitioner no. 4 could not file application due to some technical glitches in the system for filing application SVLDRS. The member of the Designated Committee issued a notice dated 13.11.2019 to the petitioner no. 1. 2.13 The member of the Designated Committee also issued separate notices dated 13.11. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pt the following, namely who have filed an application in the Settlement Commission for settlement of a case. 3. Mr. Kaivan Dastoor learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that the application before the Settlement Commission has been decided. No application of the petitioners was pending with the Hon ble Settlement Commission when the petitioners filed applications under SVLDR Scheme. As per the SVLDR Scheme and clarifications and directions issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes Customs in this regard, the cases which are pending before the Hon ble Settlement Commission are not eligible under SVLDR Scheme. Therefore, the decision of the Designated Committee to reject the application of the petitioner no. 1 under SVLDR Scheme under Section 125(1)(g) of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2019, even though the case of the petitioner no. 1 was not pending before the Hon ble Settlement Commission, is wholly without jurisdiction, arbitrary and illegal. 3.1 Mr. Dastoor further submitted that the petitioner no. 1 and other petitioners are not ineligible under Section 125(1)(g) of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2019. 3.2 Mr. Dastoor would submit that the applications filed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 002. The Central Board of Direct Taxes and Customs, has, by a circular dated 27.08.2019 clarified as under: 10(f) Section 125(g) excludes the cases where an application has been filed before the Settlement Commission for settlement. However, in many such cases, proceedings before the Commission may abate due to reasons such as rejection of the application by the Commission or due to order of the Commission not being passed within the prescribed time etc. It is clarified that all such cases which are outside the purview of the Settlement Commission shall be covered under the Scheme under the relevant category of adjudication or appeal or arrears as the case may be provided the eligibility is otherwise established under this Scheme. Further, any pending appeals, reference or writ petition filed against or any arrears emerging out of the orders of Settlement Commission are also eligible under the Scheme. 6. Reading the same in its entirety it indicates that when there are arrears emerging out of orders of the Settlement Commission, the assessee is eligible under the scheme. 7. Therefore though no appeal or reference were pending, here was a case where the Settlement Comm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
