DINESH ARVINDBHAI PADARIA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner before this Court claims to be an informer, on whose information a raid was carried out and incident of excise duty evasion came to light. Now by invoking Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is claiming reward to which he is entitled to for the information given by him to the Department.

(2.) The facts in brief necessary for disposal of this petition are as under: -

(3.) In support of his contention, learned Advocate Shri Chhabaria for the petitioner submitted that the decision of the Rewards Committee is not in consonance with the scheme. He submitted that once the adjudication is concluded, the petitioner was entitled to receive the reward under the scheme. He submitted that though the scheme envisages payment of reward on the basis of recovery made, in view of the communication, he would submit that the adjudicating authority in an order, which has attained finality, has concluded that the amount of excise duty is received. He referred to the portion of the final order in the Order in Original passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Surat -II dated 07.05.2004, where the conclusion is as under: -