9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (7) TMI 1162X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proper construction of the provisions of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, read with the Approved Rehabilitation Scheme by BIFR, the Tribunal was justified in not following the said order? (b) Whether, on the facts and under the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in retaining the quantum of interest at 25 per cent of the amount of the interest and penalty, though directed to be waived in entirety without any condition? (c) Whether, on the facts and under the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in not exercising its discretionary power judiciously by remitting 100 per cent interest and penalty as per the direction of the BIFR through approved "Rehabilitation Scheme"? ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Tribunal after considering the contentions advanced on behalf of the applicants herein was pleased to reduce the amount of interest and also set aside the amount of penalty. However, chose not to follow the scheme as sanctioned by the BIFR. Reference sought as already pointed out was rejected. Hence, the present application. Section 32 of the SICA Act reads as under: "32. Effect of the Act on other laws.-(1) The provisions of this Act and of any rules or schemes made thereunder shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law except the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (46 of 1973) and the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (33 of 1976) for the time being in f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mpany would follow up the matter with the Industries Department. The reliefs envisaged from SEBI and the Department of Company Affairs in para 8.13 of the scheme, were under BIFR's powers." This apparently shows that the Sales Tax Department had having notice and in fact was represented before the BIFR. In other words, prima facie the contention urged that no notice had been served on the Sales Tax Department is contrary to the record before us and the scheme in which it is so set out. The next question which we have to answer is after the scheme has been sanctioned and the same has been brought to the attention of the appellate authority, could the appellate authority have ignored the scheme. We have already reproduced section 32(1) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erefore, the respondents are still aggrieved by that part of the order and it is open to them that they can still move the BIFR for whatever reliefs they may be entitled to in law. The Tribunal will note the finding in the scheme that the respondents were present. Having so said, in our opinion, the second appellate authority having not considered the true import of section 32 of the SICA Act, the order to that extent in not granting the complete relief of interest and penalty as up to March 31, 2007 is liable to be set aside. Consequently questions (a) and (b) will have to be answered in the negative against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. As the questions (a) and (b) are answered in the negative against the Revenue, in our opi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
