SANJAY JOSHI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:

(2.) IN support of the writ petition it is submitted by Mr. Bahhor, learned counsel that the petitioner had supplied certain exclusive information to the Excise Department pertaining to evasion of tax from M/s Columbia Electronics Limited, Raisen, and hence is entitled to reward as per Ministry's letter F.No. 13011/3/AD. V. Dated 30.3.1985. Learned counsel has drawn attention of this Court to clause 5.3. of the aforesaid scheme. I will deal with the same at a latter stage. This Court had issued notice to the respondents to show cause. In persuance of the same a return has been filed contending, inter alia, that on the basis of the information supplied by the petitioner a proceeding for adjudication had commenced by the competent authority and a demand of Rs. 68,93,847.47/ was imposed along with penalty. However, the said order was called in question before the Central Excise Gold Control Appellate Tribunal (in short 'CEGAT') and the CEGAT remanded the matter for de novo adjudication. After such direction was given the adjudicting authority passed a fresh order of assessment, which has travelled to the CEGAT and the same is pending for adjudication. A stand has been taken in the return that as the matter is sub -judice, claim of reward by the petitioner, at this juncture is not tenable.

(3.) ON a perusal of the aforesaid clause it becomes quite vivid that the language employed in the said clause is not absolutely unequivocal that in any event the petitioner would be entitled to 25% of the expected final reward. The same is qualified by the satisfaction of the competent authority to the effect that there is reasonable chance of success in the adjudication process. It is submitted by Mr. Bahhor that 25% of the rewarded sum should have been given to him. But, a potential but, the assessee has been assailing the order passed by the competent authority of the Department and when the appeal is pending before the CEGAT, it cannot be said that the petitioner is entitled to 25% of the reward. The authority is justified in not recording satisfaction for releasing l/4th of the rewarded sum as claimed by the petitioner. In this context I may refer with profit to the decision which has been brought to the notice of this Court by Mrs. Nair, learned counsel, rendered in the case of R.B. Sharma v. Union of India. 2000 (122) ELT 5 (All), wherein in paragraph No. 3 the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court held as under :