9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (3) TMI 117 - HC - Indian LawsRecovery of dues - contractual dispute between parties - notice dated 22.04.2015 under Section 87 of the Finance Act, 1994 which requires the petitioner- RSMML to pay an amount of ₹ 2,74,81,739/- in discharge of the petitioner s liability under Section 87 of the Finance Act, 1994 - due to this liability, what will be impact of the notice dated 22.04.2015 given by the Central Excise Division concerned to the present petitioner-RSMML? Held that - Since the liability under Section 87 of the Finance Act, 1994 in terms of the notice dated 22.04.2015 is absolute against the petitioner on behalf of the private respondents, in light of the cheque deposited by the petitioner on 30.04.2012, therefore, this Court disposes of the present writ petition directing that petitioner shall pay a sum of ₹ 2,74,81,739/- in lieu of the aforementioned notice dated 22.04.2015 with the Central Excise Division concerned within a period of two weeks from today - petition disposed off.
Issues:
1. Challenge to orders dated 22.08.2017 and 23.09.2017 passed by the Additional District Judge 2. Liability of the petitioner-RSMML under Section 87 of the Finance Act, 1994 3. Impact of notice dated 22.04.2015 from the Central Excise Division 4. Compliance with court orders and liability determination Analysis: 1. The petitioner, a government company, faced a suit for recovery of dues. The court ordered the petitioner to bring a cheque for payment to the private respondent, and proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets Act were initiated. 2. A notice from the Central Excise Division demanded a substantial amount from the petitioner under Section 87 of the Finance Act, 1994. The total liability, including interest, amounted to &8377; 5,48,80,659 as of 2018. 3. The court noted the petitioner's readiness to discharge its liability under the Finance Act. The private respondents argued for compliance with court orders and emphasized the petitioner's liability for any delays in payment. 4. The court determined that the petitioner must pay &8377; 2,74,81,739 within two weeks to the Central Excise Division. The authority would then compute interest, considering waiver or installment options. The remaining amount was to be paid in accordance with final decisions, not exceeding &8377; 5,20,87,212. 5. The court directed the petitioner to comply strictly with the Central Excise Division's decisions and pay any additional amounts within specified timelines. The modified orders aimed to regulate the petitioner's liabilities while allowing parties to address concerns before relevant authorities. 6. The judgment provided an interim arrangement for payment deposition, ensuring compliance with earlier court orders without prejudicing the final determination of the suit.
|
