THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM
Writ Petition No.15671 of 2002
ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice L.Narasimha Reddy)
The petitioner is a manufacturer of Concrete Sleepers, which are supplied to the Indian Railways. The product is subject to payment of excise duty, apart from APGST and CST. In relation to the items manufactured between September, 1997 and January, 1998, the excise duty of Rs.16,85,902/- was levied, through a show cause notice, dated 12.03.1998. The petitioner was of the view that the excise duty referable to steel and other material is not payable, since those items are supplied free of cost to it by the Railways. When the correspondence, in this behalf, was going on, the Government introduced Kar Vivad Samdhan Scheme 1998 (KVSS). The petitioner availed the benefit thereunder and submitted its application in the prescribed form, on 22.01.1999.
The Designated Authority - the Assistant Commissioner (KVSS) passed an order, dated 02.02.1999, determining the liability of the petitioner at Rs.8,42,951/-. The same was required to be paid within 30 days from the date of certificate. According to the petitioner, it received the said certificate on 06.02.1999 and 30 days period expires on 08.03.1999 and being under the impression that it is entitled to exclude both the days, it made a deposit of Rs.8,42,951/-, on 09.03.1999. However, the 1st respondent passed an order, dated 28.03.2002, virtually nullifying the order, dated 02.02.1999, on the ground that the amount was not deposited in time. The immunity granted under the earlier order was withdrawn and the litigation was allowed to continue. The said order is challenged in this writ petition.
The petitioner contends that even according to the respondents, it is not mentioned as to when the order was served and as to why the date of order and the date of its receipt must not be excluded from consideration. It is also pleaded that the very purpose of Scheme is defeated, on account of the hyper-technical view taken by the 1st respondent.
A detailed counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents. It is stated that the Scheme is evolved to benefit the manufacturers and it is only when every part of it is meticulously followed that the benefit thereunder can be claimed. It is urged that whether the delay is few days or months, once the amount is not deposited within the stipulated time, the benefit stands withdrawn.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.
The petitioner availed the benefit of the Scheme, in relation to a demand received by it for a sum of Rs.16,85,902/-. It is not as if the application under the Scheme was filed straight away. Much correspondence preceded, before the submission of the application. The concerned authority has also seen substance in the contention of the petitioner and determined the liability at Rs.8,42,951/-. Without any demur, the petitioner paid the amount. The whole controversy is as to whether the payment was made within the stipulated time.
30 days time is stipulated for payment of the amount determined by the concerned authority, under the Scheme. In the order, dated 02.02.1999, nothing is mentioned as to the date of its despatch. According to the petitioner, it was received on 06.02.1999. Since February has only 28 days, it was under the impression that the amount can be deposited on 09.03.1999. It was also under the impression that the date of receipt of the order as well as the date on which the period expires, must be excluded. Assuming that there was some mistake on the part of the petitioner in understanding the method of calculation, once the amount was deposited, just with a delay of one day, from the point of view of the respondents, there was no occasion for passing the impugned order. Another part of it is that, the 1st respondent did not choose to refund the amount, while passing the impugned order.
Viewed from any angle, we do not find any basis for the impugned order, particularly in the facts of the case. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The benefit under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, extended to the petitioner through order, dated 02.02.1999, shall stand confirmed. There shall be no order as to costs.
The miscellaneous petitions filed in this writ petition shall also stand disposed of.
L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J.
CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J.
Date:23.09.2014
GJ