TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 89X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se of the credit being availed but not utilised, we cannot fault the calculations made by the Designated Committee and communicated to the Petitioners. The entire argument before us proceeded on the without-prejudice premise that the credit may have been wrongly availed, but the same was never utilised. This premise, at least for the purposes of determining the amount payable under the Scheme, is not correct. If the Petitioners make a representation in the above terms, the Respondents may dispose of it expeditiously and in accordance with the law. The Respondents would also consider the objective of introducing such a Scheme and advert to the peculiarities of the Petitioners case. If the Petitioners make a representation in the above terms, the concerned Respondent are directed to dispose of such representation in accordance with the law and its merits within a reasonable period - petition dismissed. - M.S. SONAK JITENDRA JAIN, JJ. For the Petitioners: Mr. Shreyas Shrivastava a/w Mr. Saurabh R. Mashelkar. For the Respondents: Mr. M. P. Sharma a/w Ms. Kavita Shukla and Ms. Ram Ochani. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The Petitioners seek the following substantive relie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... given a notice for a personal hearing should the Petitioners not agree with the estimated amount payable, as determined by the Designated Committee. The Petitioners were heard on 8 January 2020. The Petitioners made additional submissions on 13 January 2020, and finally, Form SVLDRS-3 was issued on 11 February 2020. By this, the tax dues were determined at Rs. 4,80,00,050/- and the Petitioners were called upon to deposit an amount of Rs. 38,21,796/- to avail of the benefit of Amnesty under the Scheme. This amount had to be deposited within 30 days of communication in Form SVLDRS-3. 8. The Petitioners disputed the amount determined by the Designated Committee and addressed communications to that effect vide letters dated 20 March 2020, 30 July 2020, and 31 August 2020. Since there was no response, the Petitioners instituted the present petition. 9. Even if the extension granted on account of the COVID-19 pandemic is considered, admittedly, the Petitioners did not make the payment of Rs. 38,21,796/- under the Scheme within the period initially indicated or during the extended period. The Petitioners have raised no grievances about the hearing afforded to them. The Petitioners only co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h the Petitioners never deposited within the prescribed period, no relief should be granted to the Petitioners in this petition. 14. Mr. Sharma and Mr. Ochani relied upon the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in M/s. Yashi Constructions vs. Union of India Ors. Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 2070 of 2022 decided on 18 February 2022 and submitted that this Court cannot extend the period for making a deposit under the Amnesty scheme. 15. The rival contentions now fall for our determination. 16. The Petitioners contentions that the CENVAT credit in this case was only availed but not utilised were raised but rejected in the O-I-O dated 4 February 2019. In this regard, we refer to the discussion in paragraph 26 of this order, which reads as follows: - 26. In this case the first issue is of wrong availment of Cenvat Credit to the extent of Rs. 1,03,16,150/- to be considered for adjudication. In the instant case the assessee failed to produce to the investigating officers the eligible documents prescribed under Rule 9 of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004, against the Credit shown as availed and utilized in their ST-3 returns. They also failed to produce any certified ledgers or do ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... opriated and the said fact has been noted at Page 26 of the impugned order. Thus the condition of mandatory pre-deposit of seven and a half percent of service tax amount under Section 35 F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 has been complied with. Thus the Appeal deserves to be entertained. 24 Reliefs claimed in appeal Appellants pray 1) Order of confirmation of Service Tax of Rs. 1,03,16,150/- + Rs. 3,68,36,058/- Rs. 8,47,842/-, and 2) Penalty of Rs. 1,03,16,150/-, Rs.3,68,16,150/- Rs. 8,47,842/, may be set aside. The impugned Order in original itself may be set aside and grant of such other reliefs as may be warranted by the facts and circumstances of the case. 19. Under clause 124 of the Scheme, subject to the conditions specified in subclause (2), the relief available to a declarant under the Scheme is to be inter alia calculated as follows:- (a) where the tax dues are relatable to a show cause notice or one or more appeals arising out of such notice which is pending as on the 30th day of June, 2019, and if the amount of duty is, (i) rupees fifty lakhs or less, then, seventy per cent of the tax dues ; (ii) More than rupees fifty lakhs, then, fifty per cent, of the tax dues; 20. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Respondents, if necessary, by depositing Rs. 38,21,796/- for grant of benefit under the Scheme along with interest. He also submitted that the Petitioners would be willing to pay interest at a reasonable rate on this amount. He submits that there was a genuine dispute on quantification, and considering the object of the Scheme, the Respondents should accept this amount and grant the Petitioners Amnesty under the Scheme. 25. If the Petitioners make a representation in the above terms, the Respondents may dispose of it expeditiously and in accordance with the law. The Respondents would also consider the objective of introducing such a Scheme and advert to the peculiarities of the Petitioners case. 26. Mr. Shrivastava has contended before us that the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Yashi Constructions (supra) may not apply because in that case, there was no dispute about the calculations. At least from the order dated 18 February 2022 placed before us, it does not appear that there was any dispute about the calculations. Still, the Petitioners failed to deposit the amount within the time limit provided under the Scheme. 27. Thus, we dismiss the petition. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|