2022 (1) TMI 1058

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sent case, appeal No. ST/87545/2018 of the main appellant, Reliance Infrastructure Ltd., has been dismissed as deemed withdrawn vide order No. A/87383/2021 dated 23.12.2021 under Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 and Form-4 has been issued. 2.1 Appellants have also filed for the settlement of their case in terms of SVLDRS. However, Form-4 has still not been issued. 2.2 The Sabka Vishwas Legacy Dispute Resolution Scheme, as per the Finance (No 2) Act, 2019, provides as follows: "127. Issue of statement by designated committee. - (1) Where the amount estimated to be payable by the declarant, as estimated by the designated committee, equals the amount declared by the declarant, then, the designated committee....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ax dues, before the appellate forum, other than the Supreme Court or the High Court, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any other provisions of any law for the time being in force, such appeal or reference or reply shall be deemed to have been withdrawn. (7) Where the declarant has filed a writ petition or appeal or reference before any High Court or the Supreme Court against any order in respect of the tax dues, the declarant shall file an application before such High Court or the Supreme Court for withdrawing such writ petition, appeal or reference and after withdrawal of such writ petition, appeal or reference with the leave of the Court, he shall furnish proof of such withdrawal to the designated committee, in such man....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the cheques issued towards payment of the excise duty were whether encashed or not. Therefore, the said offence does not fall under Rule 26 of the Excise Rules." 3.6 Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court has in the case of Vee Gee Faucet Pvt Ltd [2015 (329) ELT 76 (P&H)], held as follows: "27. In respect of penalties imposable under Rule 26, again the penalty is payable if a person acquires possession of, or in any manner deals with any excisable goods 'which he knows or has reason to believe' are liable to confiscation under the Act. Such provision again makes the mens rea a necessary ingredient for imposition of penalty, as held by the Supreme Court in Pepsi Foods Ltd. case (supra). 28. In view of the above, we....