2006 (7) TMI 221

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....fore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of Section 88. 2.The learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel would submit that only such of those persons, who have made out a case that the duty demand is a subject matter before either the High Court or an Appellate Forum can avail of the benefit, whereas in this case in W.P. .No. 20163 of 1998 has been filed deliberately to create an impression, that as regards the duty demand, proceedings are pending. According to the learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel, the litigation itself has been artificially created for the purpose of availing the benefit of the scheme. 3.The following dates are relevant. On 20-8-....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t in dispute since the petitioners had lost before all the Courts and the Supreme Court had also confirmed the duty demand and the penalty imposed. Therefore, filing of the writ petition against the notice to pay the arrears cannot be cited as a pendency of a dispute with regard to the merit and quantum of duty demand. 5 The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Jagmonan Allied Auto Industries (P) Ltd. v. Union of India [2000 (123) E.L.T. 213 (All.)] held that the KVS is not applicable when the appeal has already been finally decided and only rectification application is pending. In Janatha Wood and Board Products v. Commr. of C. Ex., Bangalore [2001 (136) E.L.T. 46 (Kar.)], the Karnataka High Court in almost identical circumstan....