9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 1516X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... investigation or audit and the amount of duty involved in the said enquiry or investigation or audit has not been quantified on or before 30th June 2019. Section 121 (m) of SVLDR Scheme defines enquiry or investigation to include the actions specified therein and sub-clause (iv) refers to recording of statement . In the instant case, as noted above the statement of the representative of Petitioner No.1-Firm was recorded on 6th July 2007 and, therefore, same would fall within the phrase enquiry or investigation as defined in Section 121 of the SVLDR Scheme - the disqulaification specified in Section 125 (1) (e) of SVLDR Scheme is not applicable to the facts of the Petitioner s case inasmuch as, the twin conditions, viz., subjected to an enquiry or investigation and non-quantification of duty before 30th June 2019 is not satisfied since the formula for quantification was prescribed in the High Court order. Therefore, the basis of rejection by Respondents of the aforesaid 14 SVLDR Scheme application is not justified and same is quashed and set aside. The rejection by Respondents of the applications made by firm was not justified. Since basis of rejection of the applications made by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lakh imposed and further the waiver of redemption fine is not covered under the SVLDR Scheme. 3.3 It is the contention of Petitioner that the issue of waiver of redemption fine is covered by SVLDR Scheme or not is no more res integra in the light of the decision of (i) the Gujarat High Court in Synpol Products Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India 2020 (374) E.L.T. 851 and SLP has also been dismissed by the Supreme Court, (ii) the Allahabad High Court in M /s. Jay Shree Industries vs. Union of India Anr. 2021 (8) TMI 446 and (iii) this Court in HP Adhesives Limited vs. Union of India Ors. WP No.3743 of 2021 dtd. 20th February 2023. Petitioner further submitted that under the Scheme what is required to be deposited is the amount of tax dues relating to the duty and, therefore, Respondents are not justified in rejecting the application since once the duty is settled under the scheme, waiver of penalty and fine is consequential. 3.4 Per contra, Respondents submit that Petitioner is not entitled to waiver of redemption fine on settlement of duty amount since the waiver can be of penalty only and not the redemption fine. Therefore, it is the contention of Respondents that if Petitioner wants to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt akin to penalty and, therefore, a declarant is entitled to the waiver of redemption fine under Section 129 of SVLDR Scheme. The very same issue also arose before the Gujarat High Court in Synpol Products Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and the High Court in paragraph 4.5 of the said decision recorded that the Revenue has accepted that waiver of fine is allowed under the Scheme although Section 129 (1) of the said Scheme does not refer to fine and the said stand of the Revenue is in line with the clarifications, press release and flyers issued by the Board. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in HP Adhesives Limited (supra) has also accepted the decisions Gujarat and Allahabad High Court mentioned above. Therefore, in our view, the basis of rejection that waiver of redemption fine is not covered is required to be rejected. 3.7 Assuming we accept the contention of respondents that redemption fine is nothing but a duty then even in that case, the SVLDR Scheme grants immunity/waiver from such redemption fine if the basic excise duty is paid as per the Scheme. This is so because under Section 124, what is required to be paid is the prescribed percentage of tax dues which is defined in Section 123 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e directed to issue Form SVLDRS-4 to Petitioner No.1-Firm within a period of four weeks from the date of uploading this judgment. 4. Rejection of application in Form SVLDRS-1 No. LD2612190005177 dated 26 th December 2019 . 4.1 The second declaration which is challenged in the present petition was filed on 26th December 2019 by Petitioner No.1-Firm for settling the disputes under the SVLDR Scheme arising out of show cause notice dated 3rd March 2008, wherein under the SVLDR Scheme excise duty of Rs. 38,30,075/- and penalty of Rs. 33,32,457/- was demanded. 4.2 On 26th December 2019, the said application was rejected on the ground that assessee had requested to withdraw the said application vide letter dated Nil. 4.3 Respondents in their affidavit-in-reply of Shri Dange affirmed on 5th July 2024 have accepted in paragraph 5 that the said remark has been erroneously made. There is no rebuttal that petitioner has not made any application for withdrawing. Counsel for Respondents has not disputed this position. 4.4 In view thereof, the ground for rejection of the application No. LD2612190005177 made by Petitioner-Firm does not survive and, therefore, Respondents are directed to accept, wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he goods pending investigation. 5.4 Pursuant to above, the statement of Petitioners representative was recorded on 6th July 2007 under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act which is evident from the show cause notice issued on 8th August 2007. In the light of the above facts, the short issue which arises for our consideration is whether Petitioner No.1-Firm is eligible to avail the benefit of SVLDR Scheme. 5.5 Section 125 (1) of SVLDR Scheme provides that all persons shall be eligible to make a declaration under the Scheme except the persons who are mentioned in clauses (a) to (f). Clause (e) disqualifies person who have been subjected to an enquiry or investigation or audit and the amount of duty involved in the said enquiry or investigation or audit has not been quantified on or before 30th June 2019. Section 121 (m) of SVLDR Scheme defines enquiry or investigation to include the actions specified therein and sub-clause (iv) refers to recording of statement . In the instant case, as noted above the statement of the representative of Petitioner No.1-Firm was recorded on 6th July 2007 and, therefore, same would fall within the phrase enquiry or investigation as defined in Section 12 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
