The principle of 'no reformatio in peius' was applied, ensuring that the petitioners cannot be put in a worse condition as a result of filing appeals or submitting declarations under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019.

JUDGMENT

Ujjal Bhuyan, J. - Subject matter and reliefs sought for in the three writ petitions being identical, those were heard together on 20.10.2020 and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.

2. Heard Mr. Sridharan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Jetly, learned senior counsel alongwith Mr. J. B. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents.

3. The three writ petitions have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to the respondents, more particularly respondent No.2, to substitute the estimated amount payable as mentioned in forms SVLDRS-2 and SVLDRS-3 with the tax dues less tax relief amounts mentioned in the applications (declarations) filed by the petitioners in form SVLDRS-1 under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019.

4. Short point for consideration in all the three writ petitions is what would be the amount of tax dues in respect of the petitioners? Whether it would be the amount mentioned in the show cause-cum-demand notice or the amount determined by the adjudicating authority in the order in original which amount has been accepted by the department though the order in original has been set aside by the appellate forum?

5. For the sake of convenience we take up the facts and pleadings in Writ Petition No.818 of 2020 wherein the relevant figures in respect of the other two writ petitions are also mentioned.

6. Petitioner is a private limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its office at Malad (West), Mumbai.

7. The three petitioners were issued show cause-cum-demand notice dated 17.01.1992 from the office of Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-II on the allegation that petitioners had contravened provisions of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. In the show cause-cum-demand notice the amounts stated to be due against each of the three petitioners were mentioned as under:-

8. It is stated that Collector of Central Excise, Mumbai-II passed the order in original on 10.02.1993 more or less confirming the demand raised in the show cause-cum-demand notice.

9. Petitioner challenged the said order in original dated 10.02.1993 before the then Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (CEGAT). CEGAT vide order dated 28.03.1994 remanded the matter back to the Commissioner of Central Excise to consider the entire issue. It was held that since the Collector had not determined the exact amount of duty payable by the petitioner at the time of passing of final order and in view of the discrepancies noticeable in the order in original, the matter was remanded back to the Commissioner to redetermine the exact duty amount payable by the petitioner.

9.1. On remand Commissioner of Central Excise passed fresh order in original dated 29.03.2006. In the said order Commissioner adjudicated only on the quantum of duty and penalty. As per the said order Commissioner of Central Excise confirmed the total demand against the three petitioners as under :-

1.	M/s. Jyoti Plastic Works Private Limited (Petitioner in Writ Petition No.818 of 2020)	Rs. 6,15,017.00
2.	M/s. Jai Plastics (Petitioner in Writ Petition No.828 of 2020)	Rs.10,12,375.00
3.	M/s. N. D. Patel (Petitioner in Writ Petition No.821 of 2020)	Rs. 2,66,193.00
	Total	Rs.18,93,585.00

10. Thus