9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 1263X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rlier sick and restored only later. It also did not take into account that the appeals of the Directors could not have been dismissed on the ground of non-compliance of section 35F of the Act as appeal of Harbhajan Singh was to be heard on merits as pre-deposit had been exempted, and the appeal of Vinod Garg could not have been dismissed as the pre-deposit amount had already been deposited. Be that as it may, even after the pre-deposit was made, the appeal of Vinod Garg was not taken up and would be treated to be pending. Since the appeal of respondent-Royal Industries Ltd. has been dismissed on the ground of non-payment which they have made now and also the same as having been accepted by the appellant, the Revenue cannot be allowed to tur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... considering the submissions raised by both the parties, directed the respondent-company to deposit Rs.80 lakhs towards demand within period of 08 weeks from that day. The penalty imposed upon the Managing Director Harbhajan Singh Sandhu was dispensed with, and the other two parties, namely Harman Fashions Pvt. Ltd. and Vinod Garg were directed to deposit amount of Rs. 1.25 lakhs and Rs. 2 lakhs respectively as a condition of hearing their appeals. 3. On 13.10.2014, the appeal was again taken up for hearing. The Tribunal noticed that the Royal Industries had not deposited the amount as was directed vide order dated 04.06.2012. It was also pointed out that the company was declared sick and BIFR proceedings had been initiated. It also noticed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 87 Del, Lindt Exports vs. Commissioner, 2013 (9) TMI 1102 SC, Picaso Overseas Mumbai vs. CESTAT, 2016(4) TMI 183 Madras, Jai Bharat Steel Co. vs. Commissioner of Customs, 2013 (10) TMI 124 Gujrat, and Kissan Gramudyog Sansthan vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, 2014 (11) TMI 538 Allahabad. 8. We have considered the submissions. It is a case where the respondent-company was admittedly declared as sick company under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred as SICA) by the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) vide order dated 12.09.2005. 9. Thus, when the interim order was passed on 04.06.2012, the company was a sick company under BIFR. It appears to have restored its position and h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly become alive after the pre-deposit is made. 12. In this case, we are satisfied that the company was declared as a sick company under the SICA, and therefore its account could not have been operated upon. The earlier order passed by this Court did not take into account the said aspects. We also find that the delay in filing application for restoration of an appeal after 07 years by the company was maintainable before the Tribunal as the company was earlier sick and restored only later. It also did not take into account that the appeals of the Directors could not have been dismissed on the ground of non-compliance of section 35F of the Act as appeal of Harbhajan Singh was to be heard on merits as pre-deposit had been exempted, and the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
