9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 1033X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by a transferor company like the Noticee. If the liabilities of the Noticee Company stood undischarged, the petitioner, as the successor of the business of the Noticee company and as the transferee company not only acquires the liabilities of the transferor company but also its assets, unless, the liability was retained by the promoters of the transferor company. The petitioner has not filed Scheme of Amalgamation before this Court. Therefore, Show Cause Notice proceeding cannot be scuttled. Since, the benefit of advance license was availed by the Noticee (transferor) and it had filed to discharge its obligation under the advance license, the liability has to be discharged by the transferee company as its successor. As a transferee company, the petitioner cannot state that the liability of the noticee company stood extinguished on account of its merger /amalgamation with it. This writ petition is therefore liable to be dismissed. The petitioner is therefore directed to file a reply with the impugned Show Cause Notice within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. For the sake of clarity, a corrigendum may be issued to the impugned Show Caus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lchand Chug vs. Commissioner of C.Ex.Nashik, 2015(323)E.L.T.753 (Bom.,) iii) Madina (UZ) Impex vs. Union of India, 2019(368) E.L.T.555(Del.) iv) Government of India vs. Citedal Fine Pharmaceuticals, 1989(42)E.L.T.515(S.C.) v) Spice Entertainment Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax reported in 2012 (280) E.L.T 43(Del), vi) CIT New Delhi Vs. M/s.Spice Enfotainment Ltd in Civil Appeal No.285 of 2014, vii) Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax -6 Vs. Maruti Suzuki India Limited reported in 2018 SCC Online Del 13332 (Delhi HC) and viii) Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi Vs. Maruti Suzuki India Limited reported in 2019 SCC Online SC 928. ix) Alamelu Veerappan vs. Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward-2(2), Chennai ,(2018)95 taxmann.com 155(Madras) x) Shabina Abraham vs. Collector of Central Excise and Customs, 2015(322) E.L.T.372(S.C.) xi) Godrej Boyce Mfg.Co.,Ltd., vs. Union of India (Through the Secretary) Ministry of Law and Justice, Commissioner of CGST Navi Mumbai Commissionerate, Joint Commissioner of CGSG Navi Mumbai Commissionerate, 2022(9)TMI 318 . 4. It is submitted that the impugned show cause notice by the th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... longer res integra and has been answered by the Division Bench of this Court rendered in the context of Section 28 of the Customs Act in the case of Varalakshmi Exports Vs. CESTAT, Chennai reported in 2021 (376) E.L.T.463 (Mad). A reference is made to Paragraph 18, 19 and 20, which reads as under:- 18. The demand of duty for violating the post importation condition of an exemption notification is not confined to any period of limitation and hence there is no relevancy in the argument of the Appellants that they did not suppress any material facts. Just because the Tribunal has wrongly interpreted the order passed in the Bombay Hospital Trust case or the Revenue was indifferent to such wrong interpretation and the resultant effect, this Court cannot make an unnecessary exercise by analyzing the fact whether or not there was or any suppression of facts in the context of Section 28(4). Section 28(4) refers only about those cases for which limitation is applicable but because of certain aggravating circumstances like suppression of facts, the limitation gets extended to 5 years. 19. Even if the point on suppression of fact is analyses for the sake of completion, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bmits that M/s.Fabritex Exports Pvt.Ltd., had obtained Advance Authorization No.0710041662/30.11.2005 from ADGFT, Bangalore. The said Authorization was issued with a condition that the importer has to fulfill the export obligation as prescribed in the above said notification read with the conditions as prescribed in the Advance Authorization. The importer had also executed bond of Rs. 1,25,00,000/- with an undertaking that they will fulfill the export obligation, failing which they will pay back the customs duties availed as exemption under Advance Authorization Scheme along with applicable interest. 14. Pursuant to the order passed by the High Court of Karnataka dated 11.12.2009, Fabritex Exports Pvt.Ltd., was merged with one M/s. Integra Apparels and Textiles Ltd. Thereafter, pursuant to the order passed by the Karnataka High Court dated 27.08.2010, Integra Apparels and Textiles Ltd was merged with M/s.Morarjee Textiles Ltd., Fabritex Export Pvt.Ltd., was issued the Advance Authorization using which in the month of December, 2005, the said Fabritex Export Pvt.Ltd., imported four consignment of materials and filed four Bills of Entry with Customs House, Chennai for the assessme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bric by this office letter dated 21.01.2008. 19. The learned Senior Panel Counsel for the first and second respondent further submits that the contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted because the firm was given enough time to settle the issue on payment of duty plus interest on unutilized excess imports. But, however, the petitioner has not settled the issue as per the RLA's letter dated 21.01.2008 as assured by them. Therefore, the present writ petition is devoid on merits and is not maintainable and hence this Court may be pleased to direct the petitioner to pay the duty plus interest on unutilized imported material as informed to them by this office letter dated 21.01.2008. 20. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Panel counsel for the first and third respondents and the learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent. 21. There is no merits in these writ petitions challenging the impugned show cause notice. Merely because, the noticee company has been merged with the petitioner company ipso-facto would not mean the liability of the noticee company would stand extinguished on acc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
