TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 1275
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....led under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme Rules, 2019 was rejected. FACTUAL MATRIX 2. The facts giving rise to the present petition, briefly stated, are that the petitioner, a Private Limited Company engaged in the manufacture of reinforcement steel (TMT Bars, PVC and Steel Pipes), Tubular Poles, Pre-cast concrete, Real Estate construction and safety products, is registered with the respondents under the Central Excise Act, 1944. 2.1. By Order-in-Original dated 30.03.2017, respondent No. 3 directed confiscation of 291.218 MT of MS Ingots, valued at Rs. 78,62,886/-, while granting the petitioner an option to redeem the goods on payment of a redemption fine of Rs. 10,00,000/- in lieu of confiscation. A penalty of Rs. 3,00,000/- was also imposed upon the petitioner by the said order. 2.2. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeals), Jaipur, wherein the learned Commissioner, vide Order-in-Appeal No. 29(RK)CE/JPR/2017-18 dated 16.02.2018, affirmed the Order-in-Original and dismissed the appeal of the petitioner. 3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid dismissal, the petitioner preferred a second appeal under S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ated as eligible. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 6. Per Contra learned counsel for the respondents, while supporting the impugned order of rejection particularly submits that: (a) the Designated Committee acted strictly in conformity with the provisions of the SVLDR Scheme, 2019. (b) The Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs, vide letter dated 20.12.2019, has clarified that the expression 'fine' under the Scheme is to be construed with reference to Section 9 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and not Section 34 thereof, so as to include a redemption fine. 6.1. It was prayed that the present writ petition be dismissed. 7. In the aforesaid backdrop, we have heard the rival contentions of the learned counsel representing the respective parties and have examined the material available on record, including the judgment cited before us. 8. From a bare perusal of the record, it is evident that the petitioner had filed a declaration in terms of the SVLDR Scheme, 2019, which came to be rejected on 12.11.2019 on the "Ground of Ineligibility", with a remark stating "RF not covered under the SVLDRS". ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS 9. The limited qu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion under the Scheme of 2019. 12. Further, in the matter of Synpol Products Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Gujarat High Court was seized of a similar controversy. While also considering the letter dated 20.12.2019 issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs, the Court examined whether a redemption fine is covered under the SVLDR Scheme, 2019, or not. The Court has unequivocally held therein that a redemption fine is covered under the SVLDR Scheme, 2019, and thus, assessees who have been asked to pay a redemption fine in lieu of confiscation of goods are eligible to file declarations in terms of the Scheme of 2019 and allowed the petition bearing SCA No. 21744/2019, vide order dated 27.02.2020. 13. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced as under: "9.5. In view of the above provisions of the Scheme r/w. flyers, FAQs and press note issued by the Board, the intent and purpose of the Scheme appears to reduce litigation by giving a window to the taxpayers to pay the tax and end the litigation. The object of the Scheme was to provide one time measure for putting an end to past disputes of central excise and service tax and to provide the opportunity of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the Scheme. The designated committee appointed under the Scheme has to verify the declaration made by the declarant under Section 125 of the Scheme and issue a statement under Section 127 of the Scheme stating that the amount estimated to be payable by the declarant, as estimated by the designated committee, equals the amount declared by the declarant. However, in the facts of the present case, the designated committee has rejected the declaration itself on the ground that the Scheme does not apply to the cases involving confiscation/redemption fine. 9.8. Section 129(1) of the Scheme provides for issue of discharge certificate 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 provides immunity to the declarant from payment of any further duty, penalty or interest and prosecution and reopening of the matter in any other proceedings under the indirect tax enactments. Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 129 of the Scheme though provides that the declarant shall not be liable to pay any further duty, interest, or penalty, it does not expressly provide that the declarant shall no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed that in the communication dated 20th December, 2019 of the Board, the contents whereof have been reproduced hereinabove, it has been stated that when a person gets immunity from prosecution, he also gets waiver of such fine for the offences under Section 9 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Thus, it is not the case of the Board that the Scheme does not provide for waiver of fine, but only that it does not provide for waiver of redemption fine. Testing the explanation put forth by the Board in the context of the relevant statutory provisions, Section 9 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 specifies the categories of offences and the punishment thereunder, which may be punishable with imprisonment and fine or imprisonment or fine. Thus, the question of imposing fine arises only upon conviction for an offence specified in Section 9 of the Central Excise Act. However, clause (b) of Section 125 of the Finance Act, clearly excludes persons who have been convicted for any offence punishable under any provision of the indirect tax enactment for the matter for which he intends to file declaration. As a necessary corollary therefore, it follows that the legislature would not have contemplated wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....clude both the amount of duty as well as amount of redemption fine which is required to be recovered from the taxpayers. The amount of redemption fine cannot be treated separately then the amount of the duty under the Scheme. Therefore, the interpretation made by the Board in the communication dated 20-12-2019 in order to consider the declaration made by the declarant, the payment of redemption fine is prerequisite, is not tenable in law, because as per Section 125 of the Scheme a declarant cannot be made ineligible to file a declaration for non-payment of redemption fine. Moreover, the declarant is required to include redemption fine as part of the duty demanded, so as to calculate the amount in arrears as per Section 121(c) of the Scheme. 11. It may be further noted that in the communication dated 20th December, 2019 of the Board, the contents whereof have been reproduced hereinabove, it has been stated that when a person gets immunity from prosecution, he also gets waiver of such fine for the offences under Section 9 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Thus, it is not the case of the Board that the Scheme does not provide for waiver of fine, but only that it does not provi....