Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2018 (8) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (8) TMI 170 - HC - Central ExciseWaiver of Interest - Recovery of Excise Duty - BIFR Scheme - the excise duty had been collected by the petitioner from its customers but not paid to Government - the petitioner company was declared as a Sick Industry on 16.11.1994 as contemplated under Section 18 of SICA. Held that:- Admittedly, the petitioner collected excise duty from their customers during the course of their business. The fact that the petitioner collected excise duty is not denied. At the same time, the petitioner did not remit it to the credit of Excise Department. Therefore, the presumption would be that the petitioner had retained the duty collected from their customers and utilised it for their own purpose - the long drawn process of rehabilitation to rehabilitate the petitioner company, however, should not be at the cost of the creditors who were waiting for a long time for settlement of their legitimate dues or such rehabilitation process should not frustrate the creditors or make them fall within the scope and ambit of sick industry. The object with which SICA was enacted is to put the rehabilitation process, to rehabilitate a sick industrial company in the fast track mode to expeditiously settle the creditors. It would be imperative to revive and rehabilitate the potentially viable sick industrial companies as quickly as possible. The process for rehabilitation must not be time consuming as it would prejudice the creditors of the company. A scheme for rehabilitation has to be drawn and genuine attempts have to be made to rehabilitate the sick industry within a reasonable time and it should not be at the cost of the creditors of the company and to make them to drive from pillar to post to get their legitimate dues recovered from the sick industry - In the present case, admittedly, the petitioner company was declared as a sick industry. Now, more than two decades have lapsed from the date on which the petitioner company was declared as a sick industry. After declaring the petitioner company as a sick industry, several rehabilitative measures were drawn, schemes were put in place and creditors have held consultative process to explore the possibility of rehabilitation so as to get their dues settled at the earliest. However, several attempts made to rehabilitate the petitioner company has failed - the order passed by the first respondent, which is impugned in this writ petition, need not be interfered with. Under the garb of rehabilitating the petitioner company, the second respondent cannot be deprived of their statutory dues which are pending for a very long time. The decision of Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Andhra Cements Limited vs. Commissioner of C.Excise & S.T., Guntur, [2017 (4) TMI 694 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] squarely applies to the facts of present case, where it was held that A person who gained advantage by an interim order of the Court cannot, subsequently, turn around and seek umbrage under Section 32 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. Petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.
|