9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 812X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs dated 28.02.2015 confers a discretion on the Chief Commissioner to grant sanction to pay arrears in instalments, such discretion can only be exercised by the Chief Commissioner and not by this Court in proceedings under Article 226 of the constitution of India. As the petitioner has submitted a representation to the Chief Commissioner on 03.12.2015, ends of justice would be met if the Chief Commissioner is directed to dispose of the representation with utmost expedition, and in accordance with law. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. - Writ Petition No. 38839 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 9-12-2015 - SRI RAMESH RANGANATHAN AND SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, JJ Shri Muralid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... act the doctrine of merger; (ii) in view of the subsequent ruling by the CESTAT, Bangalore, in Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore vs. Ni Micro Technologies Pvt. Ltd., the petitioner is not liable to pay customs duty, and the respondents could not have imposed duty on batteries which form part of the cellular phone; (iii) Corporate Debt Restructuring, of the debts due from the petitioner-company was undertaken by the Axis Bank, UCO Bank, State Bank of Hyderabad and Andhra Bank, and the debt due from the petitioner was restructured; as the debts due to these banks and financial institutions are secured debts, they have preference over crown debt in the discharge of liabilities; and (iv) even otherwise, the Circular issued by the Central Board ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ively. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner carried the matter in appeal to the Supreme Court under Section 35L of the Act and the Supreme Court, by its order in Civil Appeal No.10707 of 2010 dated 24.01.2011, condoned the delay and dismissed the appeal. Section 35L(b) of the Act provides for an appeal to the Supreme Court against any order passed by the Appellate Tribunal relating to the determination of any question having a relation to the rate of duty or to the value of goods for the purposes of assessment. As the petitioner has preferred an appeal to the Supreme Court, against the order of the CESTAT under Section 35L(b) of the Act, dismissal of the said appeal would attract the doctrine of merger rendering the judgment of the Supreme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e said liability, as the purchaser and successor in interest of the land and building, including the plant and machinery of the borrower. The appellant resisted the demand contending that they had purchased the subject properties free from all encumbrances and they were, therefore, not liable to make payment of the central excise dues of the defaulting borrower. It is in this context that the Supreme Court held that the Crown s preferential right for recovery of debts over other credits is confined to ordinary or unsecured creditors; and that the Crown debt did not have any preferential right of recovery over a mortgage or a pledge of goods to a secured creditor. Whether or not the central excise dues should be accorded preference over the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
