Chandra Rolling Mills Pvt Ltd v. Union of India & Anr

1. Via this writ petition, challenge is laid to the communication dated 05.11.2019, issued by the Designated Committee under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 [in short „the Scheme‟], whereby the petitioner‟s application for being considered qua the benefits under the Scheme stands rejected.

1.1. Besides this, challenge is also laid by the petitioner to paragraph 10(i) of the Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs' (CBIC) circular, i.e. Circular No. 1071/4/2019-CX.[8] dated 27.08.2019.

1.2. In addition thereto, relief for declaration is sought, to the effect, that the Designated Committee constituted under the Scheme is not empowered to adjudicate upon the admissibility of the declaration made [in this case, by the petitioner], beyond the parameters stipulated under Sections 122 and 125 of the Finance Act, 2019 [in short „Act‟]. 2022:DHC:1444-DB

2. Admittedly, the petitioner had filed an appeal against the Order-in- Original dated 31.01.2018 before the Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short “the Tribunal”].

2.1. Mr Bharat Bhushan, who appears on behalf of the petitioner, says that the petitioner‟s appeal has been allowed by the Tribunal.

2.2. We are also informed by Mr Bhushan that the appeals of the other conoticees i.e., M/s Jindal Metal and M/s Jindal Cables preferred with the Tribunal, have been allowed.

2.3. Mr Bhushan also informs us that the other co-noticees i.e., M/s Jindal Metal and M/s Jindal Cables had not attempted to seek benefits of the Scheme, unlike the petitioner.

2.4. To be noted, the record shows that the allegation against M/s Jindal Metal and M/s Jindal Cables i.e., the co-noticees was that they had suppressed production and clearance of goods manufactured by them i.e., copper ingots and copper wire rods, by clearing them against kachaa parchis.

3. It is in these circumstances that, via the aforementioned Order-in- Original, duty and penalty was sought to be imposed on M/s Jindal Metal and M/s Jindal Cables. Insofar as the petitioner was concerned, personal penalty of Rs.2,00,000/- each was imposed upon its proprietor(s)/director(s)/partner(s).

4. Although, at this stage, Mr Bhushan says that there was a corrigendum issued, whereby penalty was imposed only on the petitioner i.e., Chandra Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd., it appears that the said corrigendum has not been placed by Mr Bhushan on record.

5. Be that as it may, at this juncture, the writ petition has been rendered infructuous, as, according to Mr Bhushan, the petitioner has succeeded in its appeal preferred before the Tribunal.

5.1. In case the revenue were to carry the matter further, and if the order passed in favour of the petitioner by the Tribunal is reversed, the petitioner will have the liberty to revive the instant writ petition.

6. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J POONAM A. BAMBA, J APRIL 13, 2022 aj Click here to check corrigendum, if any