Point of Law: Scheme - Verification by designated committee and issue of estimate - Central excise duty - Once a valid (first) declaration had been filed on SVLDRS-1, it had to be processed by Designated Committee. In fact, that Committee did not accept petitioner’s disclosure thus made.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri Nishant Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Ramesh Chandra Shukla, learned counsel for the Revenue. Shri Shukla has placed on record the written instructions received by him. The same has been marked as ‘X’ and retained on record.

2. Present petition has been filed to challenge the estimate furnished to the petitioners on the Form SVLDRS-2 dated 04.12.2019, under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Scheme'), to the extent, the Estimate Amount Payable ('EAP' in short) has been determined at Rs. 70,11,055.50 against total disputed ‘tax dues’ taken at Rs. 1,40,22,111/-. According to the petitioners, the net EAP amount should have been computed at Rs. 15,37,816.00 against the total disputed ‘tax dues’ Rs.80,75,626/- only, after adjusting the amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- pre-deposited by the petitioners to maintain their appeals, filed earlier. A further consequential mandamus has been sought, effectively to issue the final SVLDRS-3, etc. Last, challenge has been raised to the adjudication order dated 30.12.2019 passed, pending the proceedings under the Scheme.

3. Undisputedly, the petitioners were earlier issued a Show Cause Notice dated 05.06.2015 proposing a demand of central excise duty, Rs.1,40,22,111/-, under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). That proceeding culminated in the Order-in-Original dated 26.09.2016. Thereby, the central excise duty demand was confirmed at Rs.80,75,626/- only. Thus, the central excise demand, Rs.59,46,648/-, as proposed by the Show Cause Notice dated 5.6.2015 was not confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority under the Act. Against the order dated 26.09.2016, the two petitioners filed their individual appeals before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short 'CESTAT'). Those two appeals came to be allowed vide order dated 15.05.2019. The order dated 26.09.2016 was set aside and the adjudication proceedings remitted to the Adjudicating Authority. That order attained finality and the adjudication proceedings became pending (in remand).

4. In that fact background, on 01.09.2019, the Central Government introduced the Scheme by Finance (No.2) Act, 2019. The petitioner no.1 filed its (first) declaration under the Scheme, on 30.10.2019, disclosing disputed ‘tax dues’ Rs. 80,75,626/-, under the case category 'Litigation'.

5. It is the case of the petitioners that in the proceeding before the Designated Committee (under the Scheme), respondent no.3 was a member and simultaneously, he was the Adjudicating Authority under the Act – with respect to the Show Cause Notice dated 05.06.2015 (upon remand). Further, despite the order of the CESTAT dated 15.05.2019, the Designated Committee, at the insistence of respondent no.3 sought to treat the entire proposed demand (under Show Cause Notice dated 05.06.2015) Rs.1,40,22,111/-as the 'tax dues' under the Scheme. This prompted the petitioner no.1 to file a Clarification Application before the CESTAT, on 1.11.2019, with respect to its final order dated 15.05.2019.

6. While that Clarification Application filed by the petitioners was pending, on 4.12.2019 itself, the Designated Committee (under the Scheme) disagreed with the computation of 'tax dues' and EAP disclosed by the petitioners on the (first) SVLDRS-1. It issued an estimate of 'tax dues' to the petitioners on the (first) Form SVLDRS-2 computing the EAP at Rs. 70,11,055.50, based on the excise duty liability Rs. 1,40,22,111/-, as proposed vide the Show Cause Notice dated 05.06.2015. The petitioners did not agree to the demand of EAP thus made. Thereupon, undeniably, the Designated Committee issued a notice dated 05.12.2019, fixing the date 06.12.2019, for final hearing. Accordingly, the petitioners filed their written objections/arguments dated 09.12.2019 and 26.12.2019. These facts and documents are on record. They have not been denied by the revenue. Some hearing also a