Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2025 (3) TMI 135

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ghanashyam [2021 (4) TMI 613 - SUPREME COURT] and in the view of the well-settled position of law. Conclusion - Once a resolution plan is approved, all claims not part of the plan are waived. The duty drawback demand was raised after the moratorium period during CIRP, which precluded such actions. The impugned order demanding duty drawbacks is quashed. Petition allowed.
M.S. KARNIK & NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, JJ. For the Petitioner: Mr Ranit Basu with Ms. Maitri Malde and Mr. Siddharth Nunes, Advocates. For the Central Government: Ms. Asha A. Desai, Standing counsel. JUDGMENT   (PER NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, J.) 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties heard finally. 2. By the present petition, the petitioner is assailing the impugned order dated 21.10.2024 passed by respondent no.2 demanding a duty drawback of Rs. 10,01,724 (Rupees Ten Lakhs One Thousand Seven Hundred and Twenty-Four only/-) under Section 75 (1) along with interest under Section 75 A (2) of the Customs Act, 1962 and Rules 18 (2) of the Customs and Central Excise Drawbacks Rules, 2017. 3. Succinctly, the petitioner herein is a company incorporated .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... .10.2024 passed by respondent no. 2 demanding a duty drawback of Rs. 10,01,722/- (Rs. Ten Lakhs, one thousand and seven hundred and twenty-Four only/-) along with interest, the present petition is filed. 9. In reply to the petition the respondents have contended that the petitioner had filed 15 shipping bills (under the Drawback Scheme) under Section 75 of the Customs Act, 1962 and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules 2017, as per All Industry Rate. The respondents contend that the drawback of Rs. 10,01,724/- (Rs. Ten Lakhs, one thousand seven hundred and twenty-four only/-) was sanctioned and disbursed to the petitioner through respondent no. 2 Electronic Date In charge (EDI) system during the period from 01.01.2018 to 30.06.2018 which is prior to admittance of the petitioner to CIRP. It is further contended that the petitioner had not produced any evidence of the realization of export proceeds in the form of Bank Realization Certificates within the period which is a requirement under Section 8 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as "FEMA") read with Regulation 9 of the Foreign Exchange Management (Export of Goods and Services) Regulations, 2000. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d at NIL value. 17. It is further stated even in case any liability may arise such liability cannot be fastened with the fresh management of the petitioner. It is submitted that it would defeat the intention and purpose of this code to grant the revived entity a fresh beginning and a clean slate, if the new management is not released from the obligations and transgressions accrued before the resolution plan was approved. 18. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under Section 31 of the IBC once a resolution plan has been accepted, the respondents cannot raise any claims now that the CIRP has been concluded. Further, he submits that the Show Cause Notice was issued by the respondents during the moratorium period, under Section 14, hence all subsequent proceedings are barred. The respondents may account for its liability but not by initiating proceedings once the CIRP has been concluded. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ghanshyam Mishra and Sons Private Limited Vs. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited and others; 2021 SCC Online SC 313 and of this court in Uttam Galva Metallics Ltd. And anothe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... mployees, members, creditors, including the Central Government, any State Government or any local authority, guarantors and other stakeholders. On the date of approval of resolution plan by the adjudicating authority, all such claims, which are not a part of the resolution plan shall stand extinguished, and no person will be entitled to initiate or continue any proceedings in respect to a claim, which is not part of the resolution plan; 7. 11 In view of the above judgement, the applicant is entitled to waivers/ concessions/reliefs as expressly provided under the Code and under any other law for the time being in force. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision in a lucid manner settled the legal position on various issues arising under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. 23. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Limited through authorized signatory Vs, Satish Kumar Gupta & others 2020 (8) SCC 531, was examining the various aspects pertaining to Section 31 (1) of the IBC wherein it has been stipulated that once the resolution plan is approved, all claims stand extinguished, and the Corporate Debtor is handed over to th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates