2010 (12) TMI 1034

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tion calling for the papers leading to the passing of the impugned decision dated 17-11-2008 (Exhibit "j" hereto) under and after examining the validity, legality and propriety thereof, be pleased to quash and set aside the same. (b)     That the Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or a Writ in the nature of Mandamus, or any other appropriate Writ, Order of Direction, directing the Respondents (i)       To forthwith withdraw and/or cancel the impugned decision dated 17-11-2008 (Exhibit 'J' hereto) and (ii)     To forthwith grant the balance reward of Rs. 14,81,832/-admissible in the present case. 2. Facts of the case, concisely stated, are as un....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ce recovery of Rs. 84,09,162/- have been made on the basis of information filed by the petitioner, reward should have been processed and paid to him in terms of policy, procedures and guidelines issued by Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi issued vide Circular No. F. No. R-13011/6/2001-Cus(AS) dated 20-6-2001, Annexure 'C', within a reasonable time. According to the petitioner, maximum reward of Rs. 16,81,832/- can be sanctioned in the present case. However, vide letter No. F. No. II/39 (CON)/31/CCO/2005, dated 17-11-2008, the petitioner has been informed that the Reward Committee, after careful consideration and perusal of evidence on record and parameters of Rew....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Krishna Reddy reported in 2000 (123) E.L.T. 499 (Mad.). 4.      Union of India v. C. Krishna Reddy reported in 2004 (163) E.L.T. 4 (S.C.). 5.      Union of India v. C. Krishna Reddy reported in 2004 (167) E.L.T. A65 (S.C.). 6.      Amrit Lal Mehta v. D.G. of Revenue Intelligence & Investigation reported in 2004 (178) E.L.T. 99 (Del.). 7.      D.G. Revenue Intelligence & Investigation v. Amrit Lal Mehta reported in 2007 (220) E.L.T. 9 (S.C.). 8.      Union of India v. R.K. Raghunathan reported in 2009 (242) E.L.T. A85 (S.C.). 9.      Asst. Commissioner Tax Department v. Shukla & Brothers ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e circumstances, the committee consisting of high ranking officers, based on valuation of the committee and after considering various aspects, decided that it is not possible to disburse any more amount to the petitioner. He further submitted that the respondents are not under any obligation to grant/sanction the maximum admissible reward up to 20% of the net sale proceeds of the seized/confiscated goods and/or the amount of additional duty/penalty/redemption fine recovered. In the circumstances, Mr. Ravani submitted that there is no merit in the petition and the petition requires to be dismissed. 6. We have heard learned counsel Mr. Rajendra Kumar for the petitioner and Mr. Y.N. Ravani, learned advocate for the respondent at length a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 13 and 14 of the judgment, the Apex Court held as under : "13. It is well settled by a catena of decisions of this Court that a Writ of Mandamus can be granted only in case where there is a statutory duty imposed upon the officer concerned and there is failure on the part of the officer to discharge the statutory obligation. The chief function of the writ is to compel performance of public duties prescribed by statute and to keep subordinate tribunals and officers exercising public functions within the limit of their jurisdiction. Therefore, in order that a mandamus may issue to compel the authorities to do something, it must be shown that there is a statute which imposed a legal duty and the aggrieved party has a legal right under t....