2024 (10) TMI 1133

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Nos.2 and 3. 2. By way of this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the rejection of declaration in Form SVLDRS-1 filed by the petitioner under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (for short "SVLDRS") by the respondent on the ground that the petitioner was not eligible to avail the Scheme as there is no quantification of Rs. 20,72,31,044/- stated by the petitioner in the Form for proposed such levy in the show cause notice. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent authority issued show cause notice on 25.02.2019 proposing to impose penalty under Rule 15 (1) and Rule 15A of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 for alleged wrong taking and distribution of ineli....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e discharge Certificate in Form SVLDRS-4. 10. Respondent No. 4 on 26.06.2020 informed the petitioner that the declaration filed by the petitioner has been rejected. 11. The petitioner by letter dated 09.07.2020 requested for personal hearing before the respondent No. 4, which was rejected by the respondent No. 4 by letter dated 23.07.2020 on the ground that as the declaration filed by the petitioner is already rejected on 18.03.2020, the request cannot be accepted. 12. The petitioner being aggrieved by the same, preferred this petition. 13. Learned advocate Mr. Anand Nainawati for the petitioner has submitted that as per the provisions of the SVLDRS, the petitioner being eligible, has filed SVLDRS-1 as show cause notice is issued for le....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....itted that the case of the petitioner would fall within the eligible cases to be covered by the scheme and the respondent authorities were not justified in rejecting the declaration of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was not eligible for the benefit of the scheme as the amount of penalty was nowhere quantified or proposed in the show cause notice. 15. Reference was also made by the learned advocate for the petitioner to the impugned show cause notice, in which, the amount of proposed penalty is quantified in Para-12, to point out that the reason given by the respondent No. 2 to reject the declaration of the petitioner is contrary to the record. 16. On the other hand, learned advocate Ms. Hetvi Sacheti for the respondent a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cheti that the petitioner was called upon to appear on 17.03.2020; however, the petitioner did not appear for personal hearing on the scheduled date and time and accordingly, respondent No. 2 - Designated Committee rejected the declaration of the petitioner as it was found to be incorrect. 19. Learned advocate Ms. Hetvi Sacheti therefore submitted that no interference should be made in the impugned order passed by the respondent rejecting the declaration on the ground that show cause notice nowhere quantified the amount of penalty as the same was yet to be adjudicated upon. 20. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and considering the submissions made, it is not in dispute that the show cause notice was pending adj....