Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane Versus Seya Industries Ltd (formerly known as Sriman Organic Chemicals Indus. Ltd)

2017 (10) TMI 498 - CESTAT MUMBAI

Time limitation - whether the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was time bar in the fact that director of the respondent company had acknowledged the order-in-original? - Held that: - it is undisputed fact that when the order was acknowledged by the director of the company the control of the company was not with the director but it was with official liquidator appointed by BIFR, therefore director of the company had no locus standi for dealing with the matter related to the company. In su .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ted 28-2-3013 in writ petition No. 1951/13 has any implication in the proceedings of the Commissioner(Appeals)? - Held that: - the said petition was filed to quash the proceedings of recovery of adjudged dues arising out of Order-in-original and same was not for relief on merit. Though the department has filed an affidavit before the Hon’ble Bombay High court wherein issue of service of the order was raised but the high court has not given any findings on that issue and petition was disposed of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

uthority to verify the facts therefore even if the commissioner appeal has power to remand the matter but this tribunal has the power to remand the matter, accordingly matter is remanded to the original adjudicating authority for passing a fresh order by taking into account the observations of the Commissioner(Appeals) given in the impugned order. Appeal is disposed of by way of remand. - Appeal disposed off. - Appeal No. E/87595/13 - Dated:- 27-9-2017 - Mr Ramesh Nair, Member ( Judicial ) S .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

mmissioner(A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterating the grounds of appeal, submits that during the proceedings before the Commissioner(Appeals), respondent filed writ petition No. 1951/2013 which was disposed of by the Hon ble Bombay High Court on 28-2-2013, it was held that no further relief can be granted in this proceedings on the basis of affidavit filed by Dy. Commissioner of Central Excise before the High Court. He submits that since the High Court has taken into consideration .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nst recovery proceedings of the department. As regard the appeal on merit against Order-in-Original dated 30-10-2005 appeal was filed before the Commissioner(Appeals) therefore appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals) could not be affected by Hon ble Bombay High Court order dated 28-2-2013. All the issues related to time bar and merit was before the Commissioner(Appeals). Even in the Hon ble Bombay High Court order high court has not given any findings on the fact narrated in the affidavit submit .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

r of the company is not proper service of the order as director was not authorized to receive any order on behalf of the company. He submits that after BIFR proceedings got over as per the Bombay High Court. As per Bombay High Court order on BIFR case in july,2011 respondent approached the department and obtained a copy of the order in February, 2012 and thereafter they filed appeal. Till that time entire control of the company was with the official liquidator therefore even the order was delive .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

mmissioner (Appeals) was time bar in the fact that director of the respondent company had acknowledged the order-in-original. (b) whether the order dated 28-2-3013 in writ petition No. 1951/13 has any implication in the proceedings of the Commissioner(Appeals). (c) whether the remand ordered by the Commissioner(Appeals) is proper and legal. On overall fact and circumstances of the case, as regard the issue of time bar, I find that it is undisputed fact that when the order was acknowledged by the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

hipping Ltd Vs. Chandpur Jute Co. Ltd (Supra) 3. Mr. Jayanta Mitra, appearing with Mr. Ranjan Deb, for the defendant-company, submitted that no order can be made as the suit is dismissed and a vested right has accrued to the defendants on such dismissal. In my view, if an order is a nullity, no right can flow to anybody either to the plaintiff or to the defendant. The order seems to be obtained on complete suppression of material facts from the court, as, after the company went into liquidation .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

al liquidator. That is an admitted position both in fact and in law. I have looked into the minutes of the order dated 12th August, 1977, and the suit was dismissed in the said list and it appears that M/s. Jalan & Co. appeared through Mr. T. C. Dutt who submitted before the court and, thereafter, the suit was dismissed. Therefore, no notice was served on the official liquidator, i. e., the plaintiff-company, at any point of time. Chapter 10, Rule 35 itself provides that the suit should be p .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

1. This is an interesting Civil Revision Petition in which a principle of "Doctrine of Notice" has been the subject matter of argument advanced by both the sides. The Uma Investment Company incorporated under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act was in existence and the same became defunct and therefore an Official Liquidator had been appointed in this case. The main question that arises for consideration in this Civil Revision Petition, is whether it is the Director of the defu .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

y which is undergoing liquidation, in favour of the respondents in this revision petition. Now, a question has arisen as to whether these respondents who are ready and willing to pay the amount that is due and payable to the decree-holder have to pay after giving notice to the Official Liquidator as per Section 531(A) of the Companies Act (1 of 1956) which is equivalent to Sections 320 and 321 of the Indian Companies Act of 1948. After Viswanatha Sastri Committee's Report had been accepted b .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

C.P. No. 441 of 1976. On 9th August, 1976 the final decree was passed. On 19th August, 1976, the present execution petition was filed in which the order under revision was pronounced with respect to the notice that has to be given with respect to the assignment of the decree. In view of the above judgments, it is clear that the contention of the Revenue that acknowledgment of the order by the director of the company is the date of receipt of the order, accordingly appeal is time bar, is not acc .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version