Page 42 - ELT_1_1st April 2020_Vol 372_Part

A16 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

When declaration is filed at the portal with respect to cases involving re-
demption fine, portal calculates the amount payable correctly, as tax dues minus
tax relief. Further the FAQ’s, flyer materials and other publicity material issued
by C.B.I. & C. in very clear terms says that under the scheme, there is immunity
from fine which will include redemption fine. However, field formations are tak-
ing a stand that all those FAQ’s, flyer and publicity material stands withdrawn.
We have not come across any official communication by C.B.I. & C. or circular by
C.B.I. & C. by which those FAQ’s and publicity materials are withdrawn. Fur-
ther, under the law redemption fine can’t be included in the expression “amount
payable” which is clearly defined in the Act.
Under indirect tax enactments, the disputes revolve around tax dues.
When taxes are not paid or there is a design to evade taxes, as a consequential
action of the tax evasion, liability of interest, penalty and redemption fine arises.
The top priority for Government is to collect tax. In general no power is given to
any authority other than Legislature to grant concession with respect to tax liabil-
ity. Interest is a second priority and liability of interest is mechanical. (When Set-
tlement Commission under C.B.I. & C. was started, it was given power to grant
immunity from interest but not from duty.) Today there is no power vested with
departmental adjudicators to grant waiver of interest and its calculation is me-
chanical by applying the rate fixed under legislative mandate. Penalty is a third
priority, where quantum of penalty itself is discretionary at the hand of the deci-
sion making authorities. Once that penalty is imposed and confirmed in the judi-
cial process, in the recovery process nobody is vested with power to give waiver
of penalty. Redemption Fine (RF) is last priority and option is always given to assessee
to pay or not to pay RF. Government never compels anybody to pay redemption fi-
ne. In case of seized goods, before adjudication assessee may volunteer to exe-
cute a bond binding himself to pay redemption fine and take the goods before
adjudication of the dispute. Similarly after adjudication where seized goods are
confiscated and RF in lieu of confiscation is imposed, assessee may choose to pay
redemption fine and get the goods released. An assessee who is not interested in
getting the goods released cannot be compelled to pay redemption fine at all.
SVLDRS is a scheme for getting rid of legacy disputes under indirect tax
enactment. Government has given a scheme where it is realising certain percent-
age of ‘tax dues’ alone which is a top priority for Government and giving waiver
of 100% of penalty, interest and fine. The interpretation that 100% of interest and
penalty is waived, certain percentage of tax is also waived; but 100% of redemption fine
is recoverable, is a perverse interpretation and goes against the objective of the scheme.
Analysis with respect to Problem No. 2
Section 125(1) gives eligibility to make declaration under the scheme and
elaborates on exclusion under the scheme. It says that all persons shall be eligible
to make a declaration, except category (a) to (h) listed under Section 125(1).
Therefore, unless the Department fits a case into one of the exceptions listed un-
der Section 125(1) of the Act, case cannot be declared to be ineligible to make dec-
laration. To be more precise, the SVLDRS Scheme does not stipulate that a person who
has been issued SCN where duty is not demanded, is ineligible to make declaration under
the scheme. Government does not want to keep alive the litigations not involving tax.
The litigation with respect to erroneous refund has been specifically ex-
cluded under Section 125(d), but there is no exclusion for SCNs not demanding
duty. Further it is submitted that many of these cases does involve dutiable
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st April 2020  90