Court stresses strict compliance with Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998; partial payment not sufficient.

The Court emphasized the necessity for strict compliance with the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998, ruling that the petitioner failed to meet the scheme's conditions by only partially paying tax arrears. It rejected the petitioner's argument on duty determination, stating adherence to the scheme without seeking independent assessments. The Court directed the petitioner to appeal the Commissioner's order and refund the amount paid, dismissing the writ petition. The judgment highlights the importance of full compliance with the scheme for taxpayers to benefit from its provisions.

---

---

Issues:
1. Eligibility for benefits under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998.
2. Determination of duty payable under the scheme.
3. Challenge to the order passed by the Commissioner.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Eligibility for benefits under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998
The petitioner filed a declaration under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 and paid a portion of the tax arrears. The Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise declined to extend the benefit under the scheme as the petitioner had not paid the entire amount as required by the scheme. The Court noted that the petitioner had not fulfilled the conditions of the scheme by only paying a partial amount of the tax arrears. The Court emphasized that the petitioner must adhere to the scheme's provisions entirely to avail of its benefits, and there was no legal basis to deviate from the scheme's requirements.

Issue 2: Determination of duty payable under the scheme
The petitioner argued that there was a mistake in the determination of duty, leading to an incorrect calculation of the duty payable. The petitioner contended that after rectifying the mistake, the actual duty payable was lower, and the amount already paid should be considered sufficient. However, the Court rejected this argument, stating that the petitioner must abide by the scheme's provisions without seeking independent assessments or calculations of duty. The Court emphasized that the petitioner should either comply with the scheme's requirements or challenge the proceedings under the Act, highlighting that there was no middle ground permissible under the scheme.

Issue 3: Challenge to the order passed by the Commissioner
The petitioner also challenged an order passed by the Commissioner, which the Court noted was appealable. The Court directed the petitioner to appeal the order and seek dispensation of pre-deposit of duty if necessary. Additionally, the Court ordered the refund of the amount paid by the petitioner along with the declaration without undue delay. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the writ petition but provided specific directions regarding the appeal process and refund of the amount paid by the petitioner.

This judgment underscores the importance of strict compliance with the provisions of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998, and the necessity for taxpayers to adhere to the scheme's requirements fully to avail of its benefits.

---