TONY ELECTRONICS LTD Vs. COMMISSIONER CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two petitions filed by the petitioners named above challenge the identical orders dated 9.2.1999 passed by the designated authority, i.e. the Commissioner Central Excise, Meerut-2 rejecting the respective declarations filed by the petitioners under the "Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998" as contained in Chapter IV of Finance (No. 2) Act. 1998.

(2.) We have heard Sri Rajesh Kumar learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vikram Gulati learned Standing Counsel for the respondent.

(3.) There were certain tax due from the petitioners under the Central Excise Act, in respect of which they opted to avail the benefit under the aforesaid Scheme and filed the requisite declarations. According to Section 95 of the Act, the Scheme was not to apply in certain cases and one of the categories of such cases is mentioned in Sub-clause (ii)(c) as under: (c) in a case where no appeal or reference or writ petition is admitted and pending before any appellate authority or the High Court or the Supreme Court or no application for revision is pending before the Central Government on the date of declaration made under Section 88.