AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 1160
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....duty, penalty or the amount eventually payable and is hence, covered by the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (hereinafter, 'the SVLDR Scheme') or not. 4. The background giving rise to the petitions is that initially on 2nd November, 2004, the officers from Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence (hereinafter, 'DGCEI') conducted searches linked to the three Petitioner firms. The details of the said search conducted at the premises of the Petitioner firms are detailed hereinafter: a. Art N Glass India Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter, 'ANG') - Search at their premises, inter-alia, resulted in seizure of goods valued at Rs. 9,73,100/- b. Design Glass Works (hereinafter, 'DGW'): Proprietary concern of Late Mr. M.P. Pathak - Search at the premises, resulted in the seizure of goods worth Rs. 19,42,800/-. c. Nangloi Glass & Plywood Co. (hereinafter, 'NGPC'): Proprietary concern of Mr. Lokesh Pathak- Search at the premises resulted in the resumption of some documents, but goods were not seized. d. Residence of Mr. Lokesh Pathak - Search at the residential premises of Sh. Lokesh Pathak, resulted in seizure of cash amounting to Rs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Act ibid. 7. I impose personal penalty of Rs.15 Lakhs on Shri Lokesh Pathak and Rs.5 Lakhs on Shri Rajeev Pathak under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and read with Section 38A of the Central Excise Act, 1944." 7. Thereafter, appeals were filed by the Petitioners against the OIO and the said appeals were disposed by the Central Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter, 'CESTAT') vide its Final Orders No. 54951-54955 dated 9th November, 2016 (hereinafter, 'the final order'). In the final order, CESTAT found that joint liabilities cannot be fastened and hence remitted the matter back for de-novo adjudication. The operative portion of this order passed by CESTAT dated 9th November 2016 reads: "8. In the view of the serious legal infirmities observed in the impugned order, the same is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Original Authority for a fresh decision. A clear finding is required to be recorded about the status of these three units, which includes their bona fide existence, or otherwise. The duty liability, if any, has to be fastened against an identified-unit-assesses.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der the Right to Information Act, 2005 on 5th September, 2022, which was declined. Subsequently Mr. Lokesh Pathak filed second appeal before the Central Information Commission which allowed the appeal vide its orders dated 26th September, 2023, wherein it was directed as under: "Decision: The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record and after hearing the submissions of the parties observes that the invocation of Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act was without any basis and the case at hand attracts severe admonition for the prima-facie arbitrary yet mindless approach displayed by Debashish Dutta, then CPIO. Now, the present CPIO is hereby directed to provide a revised reply to the Appellant incorporating the available information as sought for in the instant RTI Application. The said information shall be provided free of cost by the CPIO to the Appellant within 15 days of the receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission. Further, for taking note of the admonition recorded in the matter against the reply of 13.09.2022, a copy of this order shall be served to Debashish Dutta, then CPIO by the present CPIO under due intimation....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....et out below: "121. In this Scheme, unless the context otherwise requires,- xxx (c) "amount in arrears" means the amount of duty which is recoverable as arrears of duty under the indirect tax enactment, on account of- (i) no appeal having been filed by the declarant against an order or an order in appeal before expiry of the period of time for filing appeal; or (ii) an order in appeal relating to the declarant attaining finality; or (iii) the declarant having filed a return under the indirect tax enactment on or before the 30th day of June, 2019, wherein he has admitted a tax liability but not paid it (d) "amount of duty" means the amount of central excise duty, the service tax and the cess payable under the indirect tax enactment; (e) "amount payable" means the final amount payable by the declarant as determined by the designated committee and as indicated in the statement issued by it, in order to be eligible for the benefits under this Scheme and shall be calculated as the amount of tax dues less the tax relief; 123. For the purposes of the Scheme, "tax dues" means- 123 (a)...... (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (2) The relief calculated under sub-section (1) shall be subject to the condition that any amount paid as pre-deposit at any stage of appellate proceedings under the indirect tax enactment or as deposit during enquiry, investigation or audit, shall be deducted when issuing the statement indicating the amount payable by the declarant: Provided that if the amount of pre-deposit or deposit already paid by the declarant exceeds the amount payable by the declarant, as indicated in the statement issued by the designated committee, the declarant shall not be entitled to any refund. 127(8)- On payment of the amount indicated in the statement of the designated committee and production of proof of withdrawal of appeal, wherever applicable, the designated committee shall issue a discharge certificate in electronic form, within thirty days of the said payment and production of proof. 129. (1) Every discharge certificate issued under section 126 with respect to the amount payable under this Scheme shall be conclusive as to the matter and time period stated therein, and- (a) the declarant shall not be liable to pay any further duty, interest, or p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat the appellate tribunal, instead of going into the merits of the case, had merely set aside the OIO and had remanded the matter back to adjudicating authority for fresh consideration. 24. A reading of the final order of the CESTAT makes it abundantly clear that the appellate tribunal did not venture into the merits of the case and had merely remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, in light of the serious infirmities in the OIO which were prima facie apparent. Hence, the appellate tribunal did not adjudicate and finally decide the appeals on the merits thereof. Hence, the matter was never finally decided by the CESTAT and was supposed to be freshly considered by the original authority. 25. Further a perusal of Section 123 (b) of the SVLDR Scheme would show that `tax dues' in terms of the said provision would mean the duty payable in a show cause notice issued prior to 30th June 2019. In the present case, upon remand by CESTAT, the SCN was to be adjudicated afresh by the Adjudicating authority. Thus, the SCN had raised a demand which was pending and yet to be adjudicated. 26. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the Petitioners herein do not fall un....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., which the present petitions are a part of, is whether where cases goods are liable for confiscation or any seizure is effected, such cases would be covered under the benefits in the SVLDR Scheme. The further question is whether in cases where redemption fine is imposed for release of confiscated goods, the Scheme would applyor not and if the person deposits the duty in terms of Section 124 of the SVLDR Scheme, a discharge certificate would be liable to be issued. 34. Under the Central Excise Act, 1944, Section 12F and Section 34 provides as under: "12F. Power of search and seizure - (1) Where the Joint Commissioner of Central Excise or Additional Commissioner of Central Excise or such other Central Excise Officer as may be notified by the Board has reasons to believe that any goods liable to confiscation or any documents or books or things, which in his opinion shall be useful for or relevant to any proceedings under this Act, are secreted in any place, he may authorise in writing any Central Excise Officer to search and seize or may himself search and seize such documents or books or things. [(2) The provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ue of Section 34 of the Central Excise Act, is only a payment made in lieu of this penalty. Upon any 'confiscation' made under the Act, the option to pay an equivalent fine is required to be provided. It is not possible to say that the nature of 'confiscation' under the Act and a fine in lieu thereof is somehow different. 'Redemption fine' must necessarily also be considered a 'penalty' against the offending goods. Further, in absence of any contrary statutory definition of the word 'penalty' or other specific exclusion of 'redemption fine' from the consequences of issuance of a Discharge Certificate (under section 129 of the Scheme), undoubtedly, the word 'penalty' appearing in section 129 of the Scheme includes, within its plain ambit, both, a penalty in personam and a penalty in rem. Here, both, personal penalty and the penalty in rem arose from a single transaction. Clearly, both penalties are part of the same dispute, for a common period. It is so because even according to the revenue both those penalties were imposed vide the Order-in-Original 2/A/Ayukt/M/97 dated 14.08.1997. Though that order has not been shown....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....5] A petitioner In a divorce suit cannot obtain relief simply because the respondent is estopped from denying the charges, as the court has a statutory duty to inquire into the truth of a petition. [Hudson v. Hudson, 1948 P. 292 and HALSBURY'S LAWS OF ENGLAND, para 1515] " The luminous footnote cites rulings and states that: 'This rule probably also applies where the statute bestows a discretion rather than Imposing a duty.[ HALSBURY'S LAWS OF ENGLAND, 4th Edn., p. 1019]" To sum up, where public duties cast by statute are involved, private parties cannot prevent performance by invoking estoppel. We do not discuss further since the facts here exclude estoppel". We have no reason to apply a different yardstick to allow the respondent authorities to overlook the clear and binding statutory provision, in favour of the concession claimed to have been made by the petitioner. The concession, if any, made by the petitioner in the Discharge Certificate proceedings - to deposit the 'redemption fine', would remain contrary to the express provision of law and therefore unenforceable and of no consequence." 38. Similarly, in Sy....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xes has issued FAQs, press, notes and flyers by way of explaining the scheme providing waiver of interest, penalty and fine and immunity from prosecution, then case involving confiscation/redemption fine cannot be excluded under the Scheme, as such explanation by the Board provides legitimate aid in the constructions and interpretations of the provision of the Scheme. 12. In view of the foregoing reasons, the petition succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The declaration filed by the petitioners and other similarly situated persons are required to be considered by the designated committee without payment of redemption fine by the declarant. The impugned orders passed by the designated committee are therefore quashed and set aside. As observed by the Coordinate Bench of this court, the order passed in this petition would also apply to the similarly situated declarants who have not approached this Court, in order to reduce the multiplicity of proceedings. Accordingly, this order would apply to the cases of all the declarants involving confiscation/redemption fine. In such circumstances, the respondent authorities are directed to issue necessary discharge certificate under Sec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the petitioner while referring to letter/order dated 23.12.2019 (Annexure P-5) has argued that his application under the SVLDR Scheme was made on 14.10.2019 against the demand of penalty of Rs. 1,98,597/- and redemption fine of Rs.9,64,062/-(Annexure P-3). While rejecting his application, it was observed that since the matter involves redemption of fine and this fine was in lieu of confiscation of goods which had not been proposed for relief in the said scheme as the said scheme only relates to the matters involving demand of duty, interest and penalty. He has referred to a judgment passed by the High Court of Gujarat in a case titled as Synpol Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India, 2020 (32) G.S.T.L 705 (Guj.) (Annexure P-6). While interpreting the contents of the Sabka Vishwas Scheme, 2019, it was held that when the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs had issued flyers, press release and FAQs, it was clearly stated that there would be full waiver of interest, fine and penalty and also complete immunity from prosecution and the cases involving redemption of fine and confiscation cannot be excluded under the said scheme. In this backdrop, the explanation given by t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....etitioner that the issue of waiver of redemption fine is covered by SVLDR Scheme or not is no more res integra in the light of the decision of (i) the Gujarat High Court in Synpol Products Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India (374) E.L.T. 851 and SLP has also been dismissed by the Supreme Court, (ii) the Allahabad High Court in M/s. Jay Shree Industries vs. Union of India &Anr. 2021 (8) TMI 446 and (iii) this Court in HP Adhesives Limited vs. Union of India & Ors. WP No. 3743 of 2021 dtd. 20th February 2023. Petitioner further submitted that under the Scheme what is required to be deposited is the amount of tax dues relating to the duty and, therefore, Respondents are not justified in rejecting the application since once the duty is settled under the scheme, waiver of penalty and fine is consequential. xxx 3.7 Assuming we accept the contention of respondents that "redemption fine" is nothing but a "duty" then even in that case, the SVLDR Scheme grants immunity/waiver from such "redemption fine" if the basic excise duty is paid as per the Scheme. This is so because under Section 124, what is required to be paid is the prescribed percentage of "tax dues" which is defined in Section ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of central excise duty, the service tax and the cess payable under the indirect tax enactment'. Therefore, on a conjoint reading of Sections 124, 123 and 121 (d) of SVLDR Scheme what is required to be paid for availing the benefit of the Scheme is the amount of certain percentage of the amount of excise duty and not the amount of redemption fine. Once the applicant pays the amount of excise duty as required under the Scheme, the applicant is not liable to pay any further duty, interest or penalty with respect to the matters covered in the declaration. Therefore, in our view, the reasons given by Respondents in the application for rejecting the application that Petitioner is required to pay the redemption fine is not borne out from any provisions of SVLDR Scheme. 3.6 Once the applicant pays the amount of duty as per Scheme then Section 129 provides that the applicant shall not be liable to pay any further duty, interest or penalty with respect to the period covered in the declaration. Although in Section 129 (1) (a) of SVLDR Scheme redemption fine is per se not included, but the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs issued flyers, wherein it is stated that the ben....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cision referred to by Mr. ld. Counsel for Respondent in Manpreet Engineering and Construction Company v. Union of India & Ors. 2016(44) STR 384 (JHAR) primarily holds that no language can be added into a scheme since such schemes would be liable to be strictly interpreted by the Court. Further, it has also been held that the scheme is also not to be interpreted liberally and no leniency can be granted. 43. The Court has considered the overwhelming decisions which have been cited on behalf of the Petitioners, as also the arguments made on behalf of the Respondents. 44. In the judgments discussed above, all High Courts have taken the view that redemption fine would be covered under duty and penalty and a separate mention of redemption fine was not required either under SVLDR Scheme-I or in terms of the clauses in the scheme itself. 45. The scheme of the Central Excise Act, 1944 reveals that whenever there is non-payment of excise duty in respect of any goods, there can be various consequences. There can be seizure of goods and/or relevant material, a redemption fine can be imposed for release of goods. Such seizure or imposition of redemption fine, is nothing but a fine bein....