2023 (12) TMI 1107

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ARISH KUMAR J., This writ appeal is filed challenging the order dated 8.10.2021 in W.P. No. 108414/2020. The appellants are respondents 1 to 4 in the writ petition. The parties are referred with respect to their status in the writ petition. 2. Petitioner is a partnership firm engaged in manufacture of jaggery powder and khandasari sugar. It is registered with Central Excise Department. Khandasari sugar is an exempted product in terms of notification issued under Central Excise Act and jaggery powder was not excisable at all. The Joint Commissioner of Central Excise, i.e., respondent no. 4 in the writ petition visited the premises of the petitioner, intercepted four trucks containing jaggery powder and seized four invoices on 15.09.201....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ho rejected the appeal and then the petitioner approached the tribunal challenging the order of the Commissioner. 4. On 21.08.2019, the Ministry of Finance of the Government of India promulgated a scheme called "The Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme" ('SVLDR' for short) with effect from 01.09.2019. SVLDR provided for a relief of waiver of 50% tax if the demand was more than Rs. 50,00,000/- relating to an appeal pending before 30.06.2019. SVLDR stipulated that the excess amount paid by the declarant would not be refunded and any amount paid as pre-deposit at any stage of the appellate proceeding or during enquiry, investigation or audit would be deducted when the statement indicating the amount payable by the declarant was ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ers - (2012) 1 SCC 226 ii. Bharti Telecom Ltd., Vs. The Commissioner of Customs - AIR 2002 SC 74 iii. Modern Hotel Vs. Commissioner of Excise & Others - (2016) 15 SCC 626 iv. Beenu Gupta Vs. Union of India & Others - 2021 (46) GSTL 37 / MANU/UP/2376/2020 v. Yashi Constructions Vs. Union of India - 2022 (58) GSTL 144/ MANU/SC/0369/2022 vi. Rajhans Enterprises Vs. The Union of India and Others - 2023 (72) GSTL 23 / MANU/MP/1366/2023 he argued that the writ court should not have allowed the writ petition by applying the principles of equity. Therefore it is his argument that writ appeal deserves to be allowed and impugned order set aside. 7. Sri. Anirudha R.J. Nayak argued that the impugned or....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... is no infirmity in the impugned order. Hence writ appeal is to be dismissed. 8. The points of arguments are considered. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is entitled to claim benefit provided under the Scheme. Rule 130 (1) (b) of SVLDR Rules, 2019, does not provide for refund under any circumstance. The two demands raised against the petitioner is not disputed. It is also not disputed by respondent no. 4 that the petitioner made a deposit of Rs. 3,00,58,913/- and after extending the relief under SVLDR, the demand was reduced to Rs. 1,50,29,457/-. There remained excess amount of Rs. 1,45,70,543/-. The second demand was for Rs. 1,05,01,926/-. Petitioner's pre-deposit was Rs. 25,00,000/-. The actual demand after giving the relief un....