TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (6) TMI 8
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct the Respondents to accept the application filed by the Petitioner and issue a discharge certificate in favor of Petitioner under the Sabka Vishwas - (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019;" 2. The petitioner is, essentially, aggrieved by the decision of the Designated Committee (respondent no. 3) to reject its application dated 27.08.2019 under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (hereafter 'the Scheme'). The impugned decision dated 03.02.2020 was reflected on the online portal. The reasons for the rejection are discernable from the remarks, which read as under: "According the letter from DGGI (Chennai), it appears that the demand was not finally quantified nor communicated to the party on or before 30.06.2019. Therefore, the case merits rejection" 3. The petitioner claims that there is no controversy as to the amount of tax dues and the computation of the amount of excise duty that was provided to the concerned authorities. The petitioner had also paid the duty, interest and penalty at the rate of 15% of tax, albeit under the GST Registration Number pertaining to its unit in Coimbatore. The respondent did not accept to offset the same against the pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....abelling/ re-labelling. 10. The respondents also questioned him on the nature of the business transaction with M/s Aryaman Soap Industry and whether the petitioner undertook any manufacturing activity in respect of the goods (soaps) received from M/s Aryaman Soap Industry. Mr Atul Shukla stated that the petitioner was engaged in trading of goods and the petitioner was not aware that packaging or re-packaging, labeling or re-labeling of goods amounts to manufacture. He stated that the petitioner had become aware of the same only after visits from the officers at their premises. He was also called upon to provide the details in respect of clearance of soaps received from M/s Aryaman Soap Industry, which he readily provided. The relevant questions and the response of Mr Atul Shukla are reproduced below: "Question No. 3: Please explain the nature of business transactions with M/s Aryaman Soap Industry? Answer: M/s Aryaman soap Industry is a soap manufacturing Company situated in Solan (Himachal Pradesh), we commenced the business activity from the month of January 2014. We normally place a purchase order with M/s Aryaman soap Industry for the purchase of soaps at mutually agreed p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d we do not undertake any activity of packing or re-packing or labelling in respect of these goods." 11. It is not disputed that Mr Shukla (the petitioner's Warehouse Manager) provided all necessary details as required by the DGGI officials. The petitioner claims that its finance team worked with the DGGI officials and submitted all necessary data and information for verification of the calculation of the amount of duty that was not paid in the belief that no duty was payable on packing and labelling soaps supplied by one of the vendors. 12. Admittedly, the petitioner sent an email dated 29.05.2019, forwarding a tabular statement, which included the taxable value of goods cleared during the relevant period, the excise duty leviable on the same and the calculation of interest. The said tabular statement is set out below: ARYAMAN Sales Excise duty & Interest Working from 2014-2017 S. No. Year Taxable Value ED@ Excise Duty working value E. Cess 2% S.E. Cess 1% Total ED value Rate of Interest on ED Interest Value Today Days 2 2014-15 (01.04.14 to 28.02.15) 4,791,603.40 12% 574,992.41 11,499.85 5,749.92 592,24.18 18% 463,333.40 1826 3 2014-15 (01.03.15 to 473....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s initiated against the Company may kindly be closed/concluded at the earliest. 5. Further in the interest of justice, we request you not to take any adverse action against the Company without granting us an opportunity of personal hearing. 6. Kindly acknowledge the receipt of this letter for our record and reference purposes. Thanking You, Yours Faithfully, For Kama Ayurveda Private Limited S/d Authorized Signatory" 15. Thereafter, on 06.06.2019, the petitioner sent an email forwarding copies of the payment challans for the excise duty, interest and penalty, and requesting for closure of the investigation. The said email sent by Mr Ravi Kumar Sah, Manager to Mr P.V. Sudhakaran of respondent no. 4 is set out below: "From: Ravi Sah Sent: 06 June 2019 13:40 To: [email protected] Cc: Anand Srinivasan Subject: Re: Request for closure of Investigation proceedings initiated by your goodself in the matter of M/s Kama Ayurveda Private Limited, New Delhi. A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ice and the duty had been calculated accordingly as detailed in the Annexure-A. The details of the clearances are as detailed below: Sl.No: Year Taxable value Rate of duty Excise duty Edu Cess SHE Cess Total 1 2014-15 (01.07.2014 to 27.02.2015) 42,16,868 12% 5,06,024 10,120 5,060 5,21,204 2 2014-15 (01.03.2015 to 31.03.2015) 4,73,101 12.5% 59,138 - - 59,138 3 2015-16 92,03,061 12.5% 11,50,382 - - 11,50,382 4 2016-17 1,17,83,046 12.5% 14,72,881 - - 14,72,881 5 2017-18 (upto June 17) 23,92,694 12.5% 2,99,087 - - 2,99,087 Total 2,80,68,769 34,87,512 10,120 5,060 35,02,692" 17. The show cause notice also recorded that the petitioner had voluntarily deposited central excise duty of Rs.35,73,730/- along with the applicable rate of interest and had also forwarded the challans of the same. It was noted that the petitioner had voluntarily deposited 15% of the duty as penalty as well. However, the said payments were not accepted as it was found that the payments had been made in respect of the petitioner's registration in respect of its Coimbatore unit. According to the respondents, the duty paid under the code of the Coi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ate that at no stage, the quantification of the tax dues submitted by the petitioner was challenged, doubted or disputed. On the contrary, it is apparent that the respondents had accepted the quantification of the excise duty as disclosed by the petitioner and had proceeded on that basis. 20. As noticed above, the petitioner had, in fact, deposited the tax dues but the respondents did not accept the same solely on the ground that it was deposited under the assessee's code relating to the petitioner's Coimbatore unit. 21. It is contended on behalf of the respondents that tax dues quantified by the petitioner in its communication cannot be considered as quantified tax dues for the purposes of the Scheme because the investigations continued till the issuance of the show cause notice dated 09.08.2019. According to the respondents, the tax dues could be considered as quantified only on completion of the investigation and on the concerned officer, issuing the show cause notice or any communication quantifying the amount due. 22. The contentions advanced by the respondent are not merited. Tax dues as quantified in any communication emanating from the the tax payer, would qualify as "ta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Scheme, unless the context otherwise requires, - *** *** *** (r) ''quantified", with its cognate expression, means a written communication of the amount of duty payable under the indirect tax enactment;" 29. The controversy involved in the present petition is squarely covered by the recent decision of this Court in Hans Uttam Finance Limited v. Principal Commissioner of Central Excise, Goods and Service Tax, Delhi South Commissionerate & Ors.: 2023:DHC:3454-DB. In the said case, this Court had examined various provisions of Chapter V of the Act and the legislative scheme, and had held as under: "31. It is obvious that Clause (c) of Section 123 of the Finance Act (No.2), 2019 covers cases where the matter had not reached the final determination, as it concerns cases where enquiry, investigation or audit is pending. It follows that the term "quantified" used in the context of amount of duty payable, in those cases, cannot mean the tax payable as finally determined as a result of conclusion of any audit, enquiry or investigation. It must necessarily mean a case where enquiry, audit or investigation is pending but the quantification of the tax dues is ascertainable from a writte....