Manmohan Sarin, J. ( 1 ) AN interesting question under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 arises for consideration in both these writ petitions which are, therefore, being disposed of by this common judgment. ( 2 ) THE petitioner claims that udder the provisions of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme 1998, on payment of 50% of the duty amount it is entitled to waiver of the complete amount of the redemption fine and penalty imposed in respect of the imported goods. The goods imported had been confiscated under Section 111 (d) of the Customs Act, 1962, but an option to pay redemption fine and -- penalty in lieu of confiscation, had been provided to the petitioner under Section 125 of the said Act. ( 3 ) LET us briefly notice the factual matrix of the two writ petitions before dealing with the provisions of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998, hereinafter referred to as the Scheme, and the legal submissions in respect thereof. The petitioner claims to have imported tractor spares and defective/second hand diesel engines from Japan. The petitioner had initially claimed that the import of the goods was covered as "seconds" under para 27 (1) of the Hand Book of Procedures, as amended by public notice No. 296 PN dated 12th June, 1995. The Customs Authorities reached the conclusion that the imported goods were not "seconds" as is commonly understood in the trade as referring to the goods of the second quality or defective material, which arise during the course of manufacture of the prime quality goods. In other words, these were not "seconds" having some manufacturing defect but on the other hand were second hand used diesel engines imported for the purposes of reconditioning and repair for giving a further lease of life. The Custom Authorities held these to be covered under para 29 of the Indian Export Policy, for the import of which, a valid import licence was required but had not been obtained. The goods were, therefore, held to be imported in contravention of law and liable to confiscation under Section 111 (d) of the Customs Act, 1962. ( 4 ) THE Custom Authorities in case of the import covered by CW. No. 2165/99 gave the option to the petitioner to redeem the goods on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 15 lakhs and payment of penalty of Rs. 3 lakhs. ( 4 ) THE Custom Authorities in case of the import covered by CW. No. 2165/99 gave the option to the petitioner to redeem the goods on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 15 lakhs and payment of penalty of Rs. 3 lakhs. The amount of custom duty i. e. , required to be paid in addition to the redemption fine and penalty in terms of Section 125 (2) worked out to Rs. 2,53,062. 00. The petitioner filed a declaration on 31st December, 1998, under the Scheme offering to pay 50% of the duty amount i. e. , Rs. 1,26,531 and claiming complete waiver of the redemption fine and penalty. However, the Custom Authorities directed the petitioner to pay the entire amount of duty i. e Rs. 2,53,062. 00 and 50% of the penalty and redemption fine. This is sought to be assailed. ( 5 ) THE subject matter of import in CW. No. 1746/99 was again tractor spares and second hand diesel engines from Japan. In this case, the Deputy Commissioner of Customs vide his order dated 23rd December, 1997, held the goods to be imported in contravention of law and liable for confiscation under Section 111 (d) of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner was given an option in lieu of confiscation to pay redemption fine of Rs. 24,00,000. 00 and penalty of Rs. 2,50,000. 00 under Section 125 of the Customs Act. The duty amount payable in addition under Section 125 (2) of the Customs Act worked out to Rs. 2,64,169. 00. The petitioner had preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Customs. The said appeal was dismissed and the redemption fine of Rs. 24,00,000. 00 and penalty of Rs. 2,50,000. 00 was upheld. The Commissioner also noticed that in the previous import by the same party, subject matter of CW. No. 2165/99, redemption fine originally imposed i. e. Rs. 30,00,000. 00 was reduced to Rs. 15,00,000. 00 by the CEGAT. The petitioner filed its declaration under the Scheme purporting to pay 50% of the duty amount and claiming complete waiver of penalty and redemption fine. Petitioner is aggrieved by the Certificate of intimation directing it to deposit 50% of the redemption fine and penalty and fully amount of customs duty. 00 was reduced to Rs. 15,00,000. 00 by the CEGAT. The petitioner filed its declaration under the Scheme purporting to pay 50% of the duty amount and claiming complete waiver of penalty and redemption fine. Petitioner is aggrieved by the Certificate of intimation directing it to deposit 50% of the redemption fine and penalty and fully amount of customs duty. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that the Scheme had been introduced with the object of reducing the litigation and wipe out the arrears of taxes and duties, which had accumulated in crores. The twin object of the Scheme was to cut down the litigation and ensure recovery of arrears of revenue, locked in litigation. Counsel for the petitioner submits that considering the provisions of the Scheme and the language used in Form 2-B, the requirement was the payment of 50% of tax arrears irrespective of the same being in dispute or not. Counsel for the petitioner relies on the questions and answers concerning the Scheme, published by the Department of Customs and Central Excise, Government of India. Reliance is placed in particular on Answer to Question No. 5:- QN. No. 5. What are the benefits available under the Scheme? ANS. The declarant involved in dispute with the Deptt. in a case involving arrears of taxes including duties, fine, penalties or interest can settle the case by payment of an amount as indicated in the Scheme depending upon whether it involves one or more of duties, fines, penalties or interest which are still in arrears as on the date of filing the declaration. The settlement amount essentially is payable as per the following provisions. a) In a case involving arrears of duty whether or not it involves arrears of fine,, penalties or interest. , The applicant has to pay only 50% of the amount of duties due or payable and in arrears as on the date of application. There will be complete waiver from payment of fine,, penalty and interest involved,, if any,, apart from waiver of the balance duty due or payable. b) A case which doesn t involve arrear of duty but comprises penalty,, fine or interest. , The applicant will have to pay only 50% of the amount of such penalty,, fine or interest due or payable on the date of making declaration. b) A case which doesn t involve arrear of duty but comprises penalty,, fine or interest. , The applicant will have to pay only 50% of the amount of such penalty,, fine or interest due or payable on the date of making declaration. The balance amount of penalty,, fine or interest due or payable will be waived. IN both categories of cases, the applicant will also get immunity from institution of proceeding for prosecution for any offence under any indirect tax enactment for matters covered by the declaration for the case. ( 7 ) COUNSEL for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner falls within Category (a) inasmuch as there were arrears of duty, fine, penalty, etc. and, therefore, the petitioner was obliged to pay only 50% of the duty amount and there was to be a complete waiver of penalty and redemption fine and 50% of duty amount. ( 8 ) LEARNED counsel in support of his contention that the requirement for availing the benefit of the Scheme was only the pendency of arrears of tax i. e. duty etc. and not a dispute in relation to the same relies on the following:- (I) Definition of "disputed Tax" in Section 87-F of the Scheme in respect of Direct Tax enactment and absence of a similar definition in relation to Indirect Tax Enactment of the Scheme. It is urged that the concept of disputed arrears of tax is confined and applicable only to direct tax enactment and as far as the indirect tax enactment is concerned, the mere pendency of arrears would suffice. DEFINITION of "tax Arrears" in Section 87 (m) (i) and (ii) of the Scheme as reproduced in 1998 ELT Vol. 101 as also in the text of the Finance Bill. The submission is that the definition of tax arrears in relation to Indirect Tax Enactment in Section 87 (m) (ii) (a) does not have the word "determined" before due and payable, as is used in the definition of tax arrears in relation to direct tax enactment in Section 87 m (i ). This, it is urged, shows that determination of tax arrears by adjudication or their being a dispute in relation thereto is not a requirement in the Indirect Tax Enactment regime. This, it is urged, shows that determination of tax arrears by adjudication or their being a dispute in relation thereto is not a requirement in the Indirect Tax Enactment regime. WE find that the correct text of the Scheme has the word "determined" before as due or payable in the definition of tax arrears even in the case of indirect tax enactment. However, the controversy as to the correct text need not detain us. It is not determinative of the issue and is not of consequence in the facts of this case and in view of the interpretation being given by us to the various provisions of the Scheme. ( 9 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondent refuted the submissions of the petitioner. It is urged on behalf of the respondent that the provisions of the Scheme ought to be given a purposive interpretation and are not to be interpreted in a manner so as to defeat the entire purpose and object sought to be achieved by the Scheme. It was urged that a collective reading of Section 87 (m) (ii) and Section 88 (f) of the Scheme show that the amount of duties, ceses, fine or penalty are those which stood determined as on 31st March, 1998. In other words, the tax arrears are those which had been the subject matter of any litigation or dispute or adjudication. Reliance on questions and answers by the petitioner was said to be misconceived as the same could not govern and prevail over the provisions of the Scheme. ( 10 ) LET us examine the object of the scheme and some of the provisions relevant for the case: The Scheme is contained in Sections 86 to 98 of the Finance Act, 1998. The aim and object of the Scheme, as explained by the Finance Minister in his speech was: "litigation has been the bane of both direct and indirect taxes. A lot of energy of the Revenue Department is being frittered in pursuing large number of litigations pending at different levels for long periods of time. Considerable revenue also gets locked up in such disputes. Declogging the system will not only incentives honest tax-payers, enable Government to realise its reasonable dues much earlier but coupled with administrative measures, would also make the system more user-friendly. I, therefore, propose to introduce a new Scheme Called Samadhan. Considerable revenue also gets locked up in such disputes. Declogging the system will not only incentives honest tax-payers, enable Government to realise its reasonable dues much earlier but coupled with administrative measures, would also make the system more user-friendly. I, therefore, propose to introduce a new Scheme Called Samadhan. " The relevant provisions of Sections 87 and 88 of the Act are reproduced hereunder: SECTION 87: (M) "tax arrears" means,- (I) in relation to direct tax enactment, the amount of tax, penalty or interest determined on or before the 31st day of March, 1998 under that enactment in respect of an assessment year as modified in consequence of giving effect to an appellate order but remaining unpaid on the date of declaration: (II) in relation to indirect tax enactment,- (A) the amount of duties (including drawback of duty, credit of duty or any amount presenting duty), cesses, interest, fine or penalty determined as due or payable under that enactment as on the 31st day of March, 1998 but remaining unpaid as on the date of making a declaration under Section 88; or (B) the amount of duties (including drawback of duty, credit of duty or any amount representing duty), cesses, interest, fine or penalty which constitutes the subject matter of a demand notice or a show-cause notice issued on or before the 31st day of March, 1998 under that enactment but remaining unpaid on the date of making a declaration under Section 88, but does not include any demand relating to erroneous refund and where a show-cause notice is issued to the declarant in respect of seizure of goods and demand of duties, the tax arrear shall not include the duties on such seized goods where such duties on the seized goods have not been quantified. EXPLANATION.- where a declarant has already paid either voluntarily or under protest, any amount of duties, cesses, interest, fine or penalty specified in this sub-clause, on or before the date of making a declaration by him under Section 88 which includes any deposit made by him pending any appeal or in pursuance of a Court order in relation to such duties, cesses, interest, fine or penalty, such payment shall not be deemed to be the amount unpaid for the purposes of determining tax arrear under this sub-clause; (N) All other words and expressions used and not defined in this Scheme but defined in any direct tax enactment or indirect tax enactment shall have the meanings respectively assigned to them in those enactments. " SECTION 88: SUBJECT to the provisions of this Scheme , where any person makes, on or after the 1st day of September, 1998 but on or before the 31st day of December, 1998, a declaration to the designated authority in accordance with the provisions of Section 89 in respect of tax arrear, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any direct tax enactment or indirect tax enactment or any other provision of any law for the time being in force, the amount payable under this Scheme by the declarant shall be determined at the rates specified hereunder, namely: ( 11 ) HAVING noticed the object and intention of the Scheme as well as its salient provisions, it is manifest that the aim is to clear the arrears of revenue, locked in litigation. The Scheme is not intended to cover cases of mere non-payment or where there is no dispute about the tax arrears. The very nomenclature, i. e. Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme is a pointer towards it. The word "vivad" means existence of a difference or a dispute. The definition of various expressions given under Section 87 further reinforces that sine qua non, is the existence of a dispute in respect of the tax arrears e. g. "definition of disputed chargeable expenditure, disputed chargeable interest, disputed income, disputed tax, disputed wealth, disputed value of gift". Again in the definition of tax arrears, the amount of duties, interest, fine or penalty, which constitute the subject matter of a demand notice, all tend to show the existence of a list. Again in the definition of tax arrears, the amount of duties, interest, fine or penalty, which constitute the subject matter of a demand notice, all tend to show the existence of a list. Moreover, Section 95 provides for the non-applicability of the Scheme to cases of indirect tax enactment, wherein a show cause notice or a notice of demand has not been issued and to cases where no appeal or reference or litigation has been admitted and pending, amply demonstrates that the sine qua non is the existence of a dispute in respect of subject matter of tax arrears. ( 12 ) IN the light of the foregoing, let us recapitulate the facts of the present writ petitions: THE goods in question had been imported in contravention of law and, therefore, were liable to be confiscated under Section 111 (d) of the Customs Act, 1962. The proceedings for confiscation of the goods were initiated in accordance with the statute i. e. Section 125 (2) of Customs Act, 1962. Petitioner was given an option of payment of redemption fine and penalty in lieu of confiscation. Petitioner had challenged the quantum of redemption fine and penalty at various levels culminating it in dismissal of appeal by the CEGAT and confirmation of the redemption fine and penalty as imposed. It is significant that the goods stand confiscated and it is only when the petitioner exercises its option, by payment of redemption fine and penalty, that the question of release of goods would arise. Petitioner hitherto before, neither challenged nor could challenge the payment of customs duty, which being a statutory obligation, on import of goods is payable. Petitioner wishes to avail of the benefit of redemption of confiscated goods. Neither the classification of the goods nor the rate of duty applicable or the amount thereof has been in dispute. In fact, there has been no dispute or controversy whatsoever in respect of the amount of custom duty payable. Accordingly, the present case would clearly fall within Section 88 f (1) of the Scheme, wherein tax arrears are thoseof redemption fine and penalty. The obligation for payment of customs duty arises on exercise of option to redeem the goods. It is de hors and independent of the dispute or arrears of tax comprising the redemption fine and penalty. Accordingly, the present case would clearly fall within Section 88 f (1) of the Scheme, wherein tax arrears are thoseof redemption fine and penalty. The obligation for payment of customs duty arises on exercise of option to redeem the goods. It is de hors and independent of the dispute or arrears of tax comprising the redemption fine and penalty. ( 13 ) THE Designated Authority, therefore, was fully justified in issuing the certificate of intimation, wherein the petitioner was required to pay the full amount of duty and 50% of the redemption fine and penalty. The requirement for payment of full amount of customs duty in respect of which there is no list is in consonance with the provisions of Section 125 of the Customs Act and other provisions of the Scheme. ( 14 ) WE find considerable merit in the submission of the respondent that the Scheme has to be given a purposive interpretation and the Scheme cannot be interpreted in a manner so as to defeat the very object and intention of the Scheme. Petitioner cannot claim to pay simply 50% of the duty amount specially when there has been no lis in respect of the same or dispute with regard to it. Petitioner s case is not advanced by the published questions and answers in particular question No. 5. Questions and answers issued are by way of illustration and to guide the assessee. Questions and answers or any inference drawn therefrom cannot negate or make otiose any provision of the Scheme. Answer to question No. 5 cannot be interpreted in a manner so as to negate the essential feature of the Scheme. Question No. 1-3 clearly bring out that the scheme is for settlement of certain disputes involving arrears of taxes, dues, etc. The scheme is to provide legal framework for settlement of tax dues in various categories of pending cases in dispute. These answers, therefore, demonstrate the existence of a dispute or list being a sine qua non for the applicability of the Scheme. Learned counsel for petitioner has cited a number of authorities to urge that if two interpretations were possible, the one favouring the subject/assessee should be preferred. Further, that there is no equity in respect of a fiscal statutes, and the benefit even of a legal lacunae must flow to the assessee. Learned counsel for petitioner has cited a number of authorities to urge that if two interpretations were possible, the one favouring the subject/assessee should be preferred. Further, that there is no equity in respect of a fiscal statutes, and the benefit even of a legal lacunae must flow to the assessee. These authorities and principles do not apply or arise for consideration in the present set of facts and there being no ambiguity with regard to the provisions of the Scheme. There is also no merit in the petitioner s contention that as regards indirect tax enactments, the requirement of arrears in dispute is not there. ( 15 ) WE, therefore, find no merit in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner. The writ petitioners are dismissed with no order as to costs.