TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 117X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 994 in terms of the notice dated 22.04.2015 is absolute against the petitioner on behalf of the private respondents, in light of the cheque deposited by the petitioner on 30.04.2012, therefore, this Court disposes of the present writ petition directing that petitioner shall pay a sum of ₹ 2,74,81,739/- in lieu of the aforementioned notice dated 22.04.2015 with the Central Excise Division concerned within a period of two weeks from today - petition disposed off. - S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17095 / 2017 - - - Dated:- 26-2-2018 - Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. For the Petitioner : Mr.Tribhuvan Gupta For the Respondent : Mr.Harsh Mehta, Mr.Muktesh Maheshwari, Mr.Falgun Buch ORDER 1. This writ petition under Articles ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the petitioner. 2. The petitioner is a registered Government Company known as Rajasthan State Mines Minerals Limited (in short, the RSMML ) engaged in mining production and its marketing. 3. The controversy arose when the suit was filed by respondent No.1 on 16.02.2012 against the RSMML, the present petitioner, for recovery of ₹ 92,59,66,848/- for the dues arising out of the contractual dispute between the parties. 4. The petitioner, RSMML submitted a cheque of ₹ 5,20,87,212/- in the name of the court. The learned court below on 22.08.2017 ordered the petitioner-RSMML to bring the same cheque, as ordered on 30.04.2012, in the name of the private respondent. The other proceedings under the Securitisation and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner was prepared to discharge its liability in accordance with the notice dated 22.04.2015. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that Section 87 of the Finance Act, 1994 binds the petitioner to discharge the liability on behalf of the private respondent, and thus, the petitioner is prepared to discharge whatever liability within the domain of the order of the learned court below dated 30.04.2012. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner specifically averred that whatever amount due within the agreed limit of ₹ 5,20,87,212/-, in pursuance of the notice dated 22.04.2015, could be deposited with the Central Excise Division concerned, and the petitioner can deposit the rest of the amount to the private respondent, if ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... liability offered by the present petitioner itself. 16. However, the question of determination at this point shifts to the issue that due to this liability, what will be impact of the notice dated 22.04.2015 given by the Central Excise Division concerned to the present petitioner-RSMML. 17. This Court finds that the notice dated 22.04.2015 under Section 87 of the Finance Act, 1994 requires the petitioner- RSMML to pay an amount of ₹ 2,74,81,739/- in discharge of the petitioner s liability under Section 87 of the Finance Act, 1994. However, the interest component has to be computed in exact by the Central Excise Division concerned, after giving proper opportunity of hearing to the private respondents, who can take up the issue o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... after. (e) If the Central Excise Division concerned decides that any part of rest of the amount is also to be paid by the petitioner under Section 87 of the Finance Act, 1994, then the same shall also be accordingly paid by the petitioner within two weeks from being ordered to do so. (f) If the decision of the Central Excise Division concerned requires the rest of the amount to be paid to the private respondents, then the same shall be paid by the petitioner to the private respondents within two weeks from making such an order. (g) The total liability upon the petitioner, at this stage, to the extent of complying with the order dated 30.04.2012 read with orders dated 22.08.2017 and 23.09.2017, shall not be beyond ₹ 5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
