TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (11) TMI 1229
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lling to avail Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Scheme') enacted as Part V of the Finance (No.2) Act, 2019. The Petitioner has filed the present petition aggrieved by the amount of tax determined as payable by the Designated Committee. 2. The facts giving rise to the present petition are that on 11th December, 2009, the officers of Central Excise ('the Department') visited the premises of the Petitioner, seized the goods found available at the premises and resumed the records. The Petitioner was served with the Show Cause Notice ('SCN') dated 14th March, 2011, proposing a demand and recovery of Central Excise Duty amounting to Rs. 1,34,66,456/- from the Petitioner along with the inter....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....x dues' exceeds Rs. Fifty lacs there will be Tax Relief equal to 50% of 'Tax Dues'. c. Pre-deposits will be reduced from the amount payable. 5. The Petitioner was willing to avail the said Scheme and it, accordingly, filed its declaration in Form SVLDRS-1 under the Scheme on 26th December, 2019 in the litigation category and specified the details of Duty as determined in the order-in-original and determined the amount payable as Rs. 4,07,709.50. The Designated Committee, however, issued Form No. SVLDRS-3 and determined the amount payable by the Petitioner as Rs. 15,73,228/- on the basis of demand of duty raised in SCN. For arriving at the aforesaid amount, the Designated Committee has considered the amount of Central Excise Duty proposed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2012. 7. He states that, however, the Designated Authority relying upon the order of the Tribunal which set aside the order-in-original, has erroneously concluded that the demand of Rs. 1,34,66,456/- as raised in the SCN stands revived. He states that the amount of Central Excise Duty which should have been taken into consideration by the Designated Committee for the Scheme in the facts of the case is the reduced demand as determined in the order-in-original dated 31st October, 2012. 8. He further, states that the perusal of the Tribunal's order dated 06th October, 2017, at page nos. 109, 110 and 111 discloses that the computation of Central Excise Duty at Rs. 1,11,35,419/- determined by the adjudicating authority was correction of the ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e relies upon the said judgments to contend that the Assessee cannot be placed in a worse situation as a result of his appeal succeeding and the order-in-original and remanded for a fresh adjudication. He states that the fresh adjudication in the remand shall be restricted to the demand determined in the order-in-original. 10. In reply, learned counsel for the Respondent states that since the order-in-original dated 31st October, 2012, in which part of the demand was set aside has been quashed by the Tribunal and the case has been remanded for de novo adjudication, there are no instructions in the order of the Tribunal that the de novo proceedings are only for the demand confirmed for the order-in-original and therefore, the necessary concl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Bombay High Court in Jyoti Plastics Pvt. Ltd. (supra). In the said judgment, the High Court after considering Section 123(b) of the Finance (No.2) Act, 2019, has held that the situation which arises due to the setting aside of the order-in-original by the Tribunal to facilitate the remand order is not contemplated in clause (b). 13. The Petitioner herein filed an appeal against the demand determined at Rs. 1,11,35,419/- in the order-in-original. The Tribunal returned a finding that the adjudicating authority had failed to comply with the requirements of Section 9D of the Central Excise Act, 1944, (the 'Act') as no opportunity of examination and cross-examination of witnesses was extended to the Petitioner herein. The Tribunal, therefor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e case of the Petitioner is also covered by the judgment in Jyoti Plastics Pvt. Ltd. (supra), which has been accepted by the Department. 17. The stance taken by the Department in relying upon the SCN for determining the tax dues at Rs. 1,34,66,456/- is contrary to its stand before the CESTAT, wherein it accepted the determination of tax dues at Rs. 1,11,35,419/-. The said stance by the Department creates an anomalous situation as it causes prejudice to the Petitioner who has, infact, succeeded in its appeal and the matter is pending in remand. The inconsistency of the stance of the Department is further evident from the fact that if the appeal had been pending when the Scheme was announced the Petitioner's tax dues would have been admitted....