/** * The main template file * * This is the most generic template file in a WordPress theme * and one of the two required files for a theme (the other being style.css). * It is used to display a page when nothing more specific matches a query. * E.g., it puts together the home page when no home.php file exists. * * @link https://developer.wordpress.org/themes/basics/template-hierarchy/ * * @package WordPress * @subpackage Tally * @since 1.0.0 */ ?>
In Superintendent Central Excise & Customs v. M/S Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. and Anr. [Civil Appeal Nos. 6900-6901/2011 dated August 12, 2021], the current appeal has been filed after a decade since the last order dated January 03, 2011 by the Revenue to recover its dues from the property whose rights were given to M/S Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. (“the Respondent”) under Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (“the SARFAESI Act”).
The Respondent was made a secured creditor of M/s Amod Petrochem Private Limited when it fell into a difficult financial position. While the Respondent’s debt was crystallized and steps were taken for attachment of properties under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act. On the other hand, the Excise Department raised demands for evasion of duty from M/s Amod Petrochem Private Limited.
The matter went to the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India wherein a Single Judge bench vide its order dated September 17, 2010 allowed the Appeal in favour the Respondent with regard to nature, title and possession in respect of the immovable property. The matter has thereby been brought up again from the side of the Revenue since the last order dated January 03, 2011 wherein leave was granted to the Respondent.
The Hon’ble Supreme in the current matter observed that there was indeed a creation of a secured debt in favour of the State Bank of India which was later transferred to the Respondent. Noted, the Respondent cannot be prevented from exercising its rights as a secured creditor on the pretext that there was a debt to the Excise Government arising from a confiscation order.
Further noted that in case there is any amount left after the realisation of the dues of the Respondent, that surplus fund can further be utilized to satisfy the dues of the Department. Also remarked, since it has been a decade there would have been a real estate escalation of the Immovable property at hand which may in turn result in satisfaction of everybody’s claim i.e the Department as well as the Respondent.
Online GST Course by Bimal Jain
Recorded: Certified Advanced GST Course
Course Details: Certificate of Participation will be Provided, Free GST Updates on E-mail, WhatsApp, Telegram for 1 Year, Background Material and PPT will be Provided on the downloadable basis, Total 21 Recorded Sessions (60 Hours), will be available for 120 hours or 60 Days whichever expires earlier.
For Registration:- https://cutt.ly/hxjl5Cu
Recorded: GST Course on Exports, Deemed Exports, SEZ, Imports, Merchandise Exports, Inverted Duty Structure (including Refunds)
Course Details: 6 Online Recorded Sessions of 2.30Hrs each with Background Material (BGM)
For Registration:- https://cutt.ly/pvw7mzl
DISCLAIMER: The views expressed are strictly of the author and A2Z Taxcorp LLP. The contents of this article are solely for informational purpose and for the reader’s personal non-commercial use. It does not constitute professional advice or recommendation of firm. Neither the author nor firm and its affiliates accepts any liabilities for any loss or damage of any kind arising out of any information in this article nor for any actions taken in reliance thereon. Further, no portion of our article or newsletter should be used for any purpose(s) unless authorized in writing and we reserve a legal right for any infringement on usage of our article or newsletter without prior permission.
In State v. Mohit Maan [FIR No. 301/2020 dated September 29, 2021] the Honorable Patiala House Court sought a response from Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (“the CBIC”) for not initiating
In Delhi International Airports Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) [FINAL ORDER No. 51832 /2021 dated September 23, 2021], Delhi International Airports Pvt. Ltd (“the Appellant”) has filed
In M/s. MTI Materials Pvt. Ltd. v. the Commissioner of Customs, Delhi [FINAL ORDER No. 51835/2021 dated September 23, 2021], M/s. MTI Materials Pvt. Ltd (“the Appellant”) has filed the current appeal
In M/s. Aktel by Proprietorship Anand Kumar and Ors v. Union of India and Ors. [WPO No. 822 of 2021] the writ petition in the current matter has been filed by M/s. Aktel by Proprietorship Anand Kumar
In Prayosha Healthcare Pvt Ltd v. C.C.E. & S.T.-Vadodara-ii [Excise Appeal No.11102 of 2018 dated September 21, 2021], the current appeal has been filed against Order-in-Appeal OIA-VAD-EXCUS-002-APP-6