TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (1) TMI 1108
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uggests these guidelines are applicable to the grant of reward to Informers and Government Servants in respect of cases of seizure made out/or infringements/ evasion of duty/ service tax etc., detected under the Customs Act, 1962 and others. Part-I of the Circular deals with the principles governing the grant of reward. The reward to be given under this policy is an exgratia payment, subject to conditions and it is not to be claimed as a matter of right. We will refer to the clauses as applicable to the Informers. 4. Clause 3.3 of the Circular of 2015 lays down criteria for the grant of reward. Under clause 3.3.1, it is stated that in cases of collection of information/ intelligence in respect of seizure made out/or infringements/ evasion of duty/service tax etc., various factors have to be considered, such as the specificity and accuracy of the information, the risk and trouble undertaken by the Informer, and the extent and nature of the help rendered by the Informer. Clause 5 deals with the quantum and ceiling of rewards. As per clause 5.1.1, the Informers are eligible to reward up to 20% of the net sale proceeds of the contraband seized. Clause 6 contemplates payment of advance....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ld not offer a satisfactory explanation regarding the legality of the import and storage of the diamonds. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and a show cause notice was issued to the Jewellers and the others proposing confiscation of the diamonds under section 111 (d) of the Act of 1962 and for the imposition of duty, penalty and redemption fine. 7. The case was adjudicated by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) and by order dated 3 December 1992, confiscation of the diamonds was directed with an option to redeem on payment of a fine of Rs. 60 lakhs. A penalty of Rs. 25 lakhs was imposed on the persons involved under section 112 of the Act of 1962. Thereafter, the Jewellers filed an appeal in the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, and a writ petition in the High Court. The proceedings reached the Hon'ble Supreme Court and were remanded back to the Tribunal, which disposed of the same on 25 October 2011. 8. Meanwhile, on 9 April 1993 and thereafter in 1999, the Respondents disbursed an advance reward of Rs. 1 lakh and Rs. 2 lakhs, respectively, to the Informer. 9. The Petitioner's husband Chandrakant made a series of representations from 26 June 20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y the Joint Civil Judge Junior Division, Thane. The Petitioner has also executed an affidavit for the declaration of the legal heir. Various representations made by the Petitioner and Chandrakant claiming the reward are on record. 14. The Petitioner has also placed on record emails exchanged between two officers of the Customs Department. It shows that these officers have discussed Chandrakant's issue and his representations to the Finance Minister and the Chief Commissioner of Customs. Mr. Daya Shankar, who, according to the Petitioner, had recorded the statement given by Chandrakant and released the interim reward has replied he finds Chandrakant's case very sad and that he could not do anything about it since he was no longer part of the organization. There is no denial of these emails in the reply. Reply mentions that Mr. Daya Shankar is now no more. 15. Now we turn to the case of the Respondents in the reply affidavit filed by the Respondents. It is for the first time in the reply filed on 10 June 2022 the Petitioner is made aware of the reasons for not releasing the final reward. In the reply affidavit, a reference is made to discussion in the committees, and doubt is expre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ewards have been released. They are obviously released after establishing the identity of the Informer. No explanation is being offered on this count. Except for disputing the Informer's identity, the Respondents have not positively stated that the interim reward was released to some other person and not the Petitioner's husband- Chandrakant. The Petitioner has given a reasonable explanation for variances in the signature of her husband on the receipt and subsequent signature that her husband had lost his eyesight due to an accident. These facts mentioned in the representation of the Petitioner's husband as far back as 2006, and it is not story created now. As stated earlier, from 2006 onwards, no doubt has ever been raised that the Petitioner's husband was never an Informer. There was either no response or a categorical assertion regarding Chandrakant's identity as the Informer. 18. Pertinently, in the affidavit in reply, Mr. Rajesh Sanan, Principal Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) in para 9 and 10 of the same while referring para 5 and 6, has stated as under : "9. With reference to paragraph No. 5, I state that an advance reward of Rs. 1,00,000/- was given ....