1999 (8) TMI 502 - AT - Central Excise

Appeal Dismissed as Withdrawn under Finance Act - Payment Certification Key

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, deeming it withdrawn by the appellant under Section 90(4) of the Finance Act, 1998. The decision was based on the ... Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme Issues: Classification of 'liquid gold' as a chemical or gold, Validity of payment under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, Interpretation of Sections 90(2), 90(4), and 92 of the Finance Act, 1998, Acceptance of payment beyond the specified time limit, Appeal withdrawal under Section 90(4).Classification of 'liquid gold':The appellant's advocate argued that 'liquid gold' should be classified as a 'chemical' based on previous decisions of the Allahabad High Court. However, the Respondent pointed out the order under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, certifying the payment made by the appellants, which led to a discussion on the correct classification of 'liquid gold' under the Gold Control Act and Sales Tax matters.Validity of payment under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme:The designated authority under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme observed that the appellants had paid a certain amount towards tax arrears, leading to a certification of full and final settlement. The appellant's counsel argued that the Department initially rejected the payment as it was made beyond the specified time limit, and the scheme was deemed inapplicable to them. The appellants requested a refund and expressed their intent to pursue the matter with the Tribunal.Interpretation of Sections 90(2), 90(4), and 92 of the Finance Act, 1998:Section 90(2) required the designated authority to issue a certificate upon payment within 30 days, while Section 90(4) deemed appeals as withdrawn upon such payment. The Respondent contended that the appeal should be deemed withdrawn as per the Finance Act provisions, preventing the Appellate Authority from deciding on the disputed chargeable expenditure specified in the declaration.Acceptance of payment beyond the specified time limit:The appellant argued that since the Department initially rejected their payment and the designated authority did not comply with the 30-day limit for accepting the deposit, the Tribunal was not bound to treat the certificate as valid. The appellant insisted on keeping the appeal pending for a refund of the deposited amount.Appeal withdrawal under Section 90(4):The Tribunal, considering the provisions of Section 92, dismissed the appeal, stating that no Appellate Authority could decide on issues specified in the declaration upon payment certified by the designated authority. Consequently, the appeal was deemed withdrawn by the appellant, and for statistical purposes, treated as dismissed.