TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (11) TMI 463
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....used the material on record. 3. The various contentions put forth by the petitioner in the present petition are as follows: (i) The petitioner is engaged in the production of jaggery powder and khandasari sugar and has been registered with the Central Excise Department. Both khandasari sugar as well as jaggery powder were exempted under the Central Excise Act and the same continued under the GST regime also. (ii) In September, 2015, the respondents intercepted four trucks of the petitioner carrying jaggery powder and seized them along with invoices on 15.09.2015 proposing to classify jaggery powder as cane sugar under chapter 170, 11310 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Pursuant thereto, a show cause notice (SCN) dated 25.08.2016 was issued to the petitioner calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why Central Excise duty of Rs. 2,96,39,738/- for the period March-2012 to 15.09.2015 on jaggery powder should not be demanded. In order to buy peace with the department, even prior to issuance of the aforesaid show-cause notice, the petitioner had deposited a sum of approximately Rs. 2.96 crores with the respondents without prejudice to its rights and contentions....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....spute Resolution), 2019 (for short "the SVLDR scheme") with effect from 01.09.2019. As per the said Scheme, petitioner would be entitled to closure of the appeals by giving deduction to the amounts demanded from the petitioner in respect of which appeals were pending. Since the petitioner was eligible to avail the said scheme, the petitioner filed two applications on 22.10.2019 inter alia contending that since the amount deposited by the petitioner by way of disputed pre-deposit in relation to the first show-cause notice was in excess of the amount of Rs. 1.4 crores payable by the petitioner as per the scheme, petitioner was entitled to adjustment of the balance against the amount payable under the second show-cause notice in terms of the scheme. (viii) It is contended that while the form SVLDRS-1 filed by the petitioner in relation to the first show-cause notice was accepted, the respondents did not accept the said form in respect of the second show-cause notice and did not adjust the amount deposited by the petitioner in respect of the first show-cause notice towards the amount demanded under the second show-cause notice. Under these circumstances, petitioner submitted h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....etitioner; it is an undisputed fact that both the show-cause notices were in respect of the same petitioner, same commodity, same liability, same subject matter, albeit for two different periods in time; so long as the respondents gave the benefit of the SVLDRS to the petitioner in respect of both the show cause notices, there was not prohibition/bar in the scheme or the rules preventing the respondents to adjust the excess amount paid by the petitioner in respect of the first show-cause notice towards the amount payable in respect of the second show-cause notice by consolidating both the cases, which were undisputedly in respect of the same petitioner and same subject matter and same liability, the only difference being for two different time periods, which does not come in the way of clubbing/consolidating both cases. It is pointed out that the usage of the words "one or more appeals" in Section 124(1)(a) and the words "shall be deducted" appearing in Section 124(2) of the SVLDRS are sufficient to indicate that excess disputed amounts deposited by the petitioner in respect of the first show-cause notice can be adjusted by deducting the same from the amounts payable under the seco....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a separate and independent case for the purpose of the scheme and two cases arising out of two show-cause notices for two different periods cannot be clubbed for the purpose of availing any benefit/relief under the scheme. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents in addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the Statement of Objections and referring to the documents produced by the respondents submits that there is no merit in the petition and that the same is liable to be dismissed. In support of their contentions, learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance on the following decisions: (a) Bharathi Telecom Vs. Commissioner of Customs - AIR 2003 SC 74 (b) Union of India Vs. NITDIP Textiles Processors - (2012) 1 SCC 226. (c) Modern Hotel Vs. Commissioner of Exicse - (2016) 15 SCC 626. (d) Binu Guptha Vs. Union of India - (2021) 46 GSTL 37. 7. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 8. The only point that arises for consideration in the present petition is whether the excess disputed amount deposited by the petitioner by way of pre-deposit in respect of the first show-cause notice (SCN-1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the tax dues; (ii) more than rupees fifty lakhs, then, fifty per cent. of the tax dues; (e) where the tax dues are payable on account of a voluntary disclosure by the declarant, then, no relief shall be available with respect to tax dues. (2) The relief calculated under sub-section (1) shall be subject to the condition that any amount paid as pre-deposit at any stage of appellate proceedings under the indirect tax enactment or as deposit during enquiry, investigation or audit, shall be deducted when issuing the statement indicating the amount payable by the declarant: Provided that if the amount of pre-deposit or deposit already paid by the declarant exceeds the amount payable by the declarant, as indicated in the statement issued by the designated committee, the declarant shall not be entitled to any refund." Section 124 (2) of the SVLDRS referred to supra, will indicate that while the proviso specifically prohibits/bars refund of any excess amount paid by the assessee, the main provision of Section 124 enables deduction of any amount already paid by way of pre-deposit at any stage by the assessee. So also, Section 124(1)(a) contemplates that the calculation of....