9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (6) TMI 313 - AT - Insolvency and BankruptcyLevy of Labor cess - alleged cess payable for the construction of Oil Palm Division - HELD THAT - From the facts brought on the record, it is clear that the Respondents in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) Nos. 68, 69 and 71 of 2022 have not filed any claim in the CIRP. Thus, after approval of the Resolution Plan, they can neither press any claim nor issue any demand notice. We, thus, allow Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) Nos. 68, 69 and 71 by allowing I.A Nos. 1418/2021, 2562/2021 and 2577/2021. The last notice was issued on 11.12.2019 by the Additional Collector i.e. subsequent to closure of the CIRP. The proceedings initiated under Section 63 (1-A) of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1948 could very well be proceeded with and cannot be subject matter of the insolvency process. The facts of the Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 70 of 2022 are fully covered by the Judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Embassy Property Developments Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Karnataka and Ors. 2019 (12) TMI 188 - SUPREME COURT . We, thus, are of the view that IA 111/2021 filed by the Appellant against the Additional Collector and Tehsildar deserves to be rejected. Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 70 of 2022 is disposed of while rejecting IA No. 111/2021. Appeal disposed off.
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of demands and notices issued for labor cess, customs duty, and central excise duty. 2. Applicability of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1948 violations. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of Demands and Notices Issued for Labor Cess: The Appellant challenged notices and demands issued by the Joint Commissioner of Labour and Cess Assessment Officer for non-payment of 1% cess on construction costs. The Adjudicating Authority directed the Appellant to address the matter with the Monitoring Committee post-approval of the Resolution Plan. The Appellant argued that all claims, including statutory dues, stood extinguished after the approval of the Resolution Plan, relying on the Supreme Court judgments in "Ghanshyam Mishra & Ors. vs. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company" and "Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd. vs. Union of India." The Tribunal agreed with the Appellant, stating that demands for pre-CIRP dues could not be pressed post-approval of the Resolution Plan, as these claims were not part of the Resolution Plan and thus stood extinguished. 2. Legality of Demands and Notices Issued for Customs Duty: The Appellant contested the order by the Commissioner of Customs demanding Rs.1,77,23,493/- for misclassification of products and wrongful availing of export incentives. The Tribunal noted that the demand related to a period before the CIRP and that no claim was filed during the CIRP. Citing the same Supreme Court judgments, the Tribunal concluded that such demands were extinguished post-approval of the Resolution Plan. 3. Legality of Demands and Notices Issued for Central Excise Duty: The Appellant challenged the demand notice for Rs.3,69,62,268/- issued by the Commissioner of Central Excise. The Tribunal observed that this demand also related to a period before the CIRP and no claim was filed during the CIRP. Following the Supreme Court's rulings, the Tribunal held that these demands were extinguished post-approval of the Resolution Plan. 4. Applicability of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1948 Violations: The Appellant sought to quash notices and reports issued under the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1948, alleging breaches in land use conditions. The Tribunal distinguished this issue from the others, noting that the proceedings were for alleged statutory violations and not financial claims. The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's judgment in "Embassy Property Developments Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Karnataka and Ors." and concluded that such statutory proceedings could continue independently of the insolvency process. Thus, the Tribunal rejected the Appellant's challenge to these notices. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeals concerning labor cess, customs duty, and central excise duty, declaring that these claims were extinguished post-approval of the Resolution Plan. However, it dismissed the appeal related to the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1948 violations, allowing statutory proceedings to continue.
|
