2022 (7) TMI 456 - HC - Central Excise

Permission for withdrawal of petition - Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy of appeal - submitted that the petitioners, without challenging the order in original before the CESTAT directly approached this Court and not approached the appropriate appellate authority provided under the Act - Clandestine Removal - wrong availment and utilization of CENVAT credit - HELD THAT - This Court finds petitioners instead of approaching CESTAT, directly approached this Court, without any valid reason, which is not proper. Anyhow, the petitioners, now sought permission to withdraw the Writ Petitions. In view of the same, the the Writ Petitions are dismissed as withdrawn.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging order of original passed by Commissioner, Insolvency and Bankruptcy proceedings, Maintainability of Writ Petitions.

Challenging Order of Original:
The Writ Petitions were filed by a company and its executives challenging the order of the Commissioner imposing demands related to Excise Duty, interest, and penalties for various violations including unaccounted clearance of MS Ingots. The search conducted revealed incriminating documents leading to allegations of suppression of production, clandestine clearances, and improper maintenance of records. The Commissioner's order was challenged in the Writ Petitions.

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Proceedings:
The company involved in the case had gone into insolvency proceedings before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Chennai. The NCLT approved a Resolution Plan submitted by a Resolution Applicant, which included repayment to secured financial creditors, revised shareholding patterns, and provisions for unsecured financial creditors. The Resolution Plan was approved by the Committee of Creditors with 100% voting share, meeting the requirements of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Maintainability of Writ Petitions:
The respondent argued that the petitioners should have challenged the original order before the appropriate appellate authority instead of directly approaching the High Court. The Court noted that the petitioners bypassed the CESTAT and approached the High Court without valid reasons. Despite the respondent's objection, the petitioners sought to withdraw the Writ Petitions, which were subsequently dismissed as withdrawn by the Court.

This detailed analysis covers the issues involved in the legal judgment before the Madras High Court, including challenges to the Commissioner's order, the insolvency and bankruptcy proceedings, and the maintainability of the Writ Petitions.