9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 1145X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ged under a scheme of amalgamation sanctioned by the High Court of Bombay in Company Petition No. 1 of 2009 on 24.3.2009 and the said KMBL stood merged with M/s Emmellen Biotech Pharmaceuticals Limited (EBPL and further changed its name to Embio Limited (EL), the present petitioner. 2. The case has an erstwhile history of litigatio n in this Court where the earlier writ petition filed by the earlier Company challenging the very same order of the ADGFT in W.P.No.2437/2007 (KMBL vs. DGFT & OTHERS) came to be allowed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 7.1.2010. However, the respondent - DGFT preferred a Writ Appeal in W.A.No.1229/2010 (DGFT vs. KMBL) and during the course of the said Writ Appeal filed by the Department, the writ petit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he said fiscal penalty imposed upon the erstwhile company, KMBL. 5. These submissions are opposed by Mr. C.Shashikantha, learned Counsel for the Union of India, who submitted that the scheme of BIFR gave specific waivers in the Scheme sanctioned for KMBL in which only specific taxes and duties which were chargeable and had been brought to the notice of the BIFR vide Para-E of the said sanctioned Scheme by BIFR, under which, the Central Government dues to the extent of Rs. 4.05 Lakh as 'interest' dues of the Income-tax Department and 'Customs Duty' amounting to Rs. 33.30 lakh on account of non-fulfilment of export obligations and Rs. 44.40 lakh towards 'interest' accrued upto 31st May 2002 were waived by the BIFR. He submitted that the imp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Though the impugned order was passed on 25.5.2006 and the BIFR Scheme was sanctioned by BIFR on 3.6.2003, after the said Scheme became operational, the present petitioner-company has not availed any remedy before the Authorities concerned under the Act to press for such waiver on merits. It is not even explained before the Court how the present petitioner which stepped into the shoes of KMBL after its merger with EL, the present petitioner EL can revive the cause after KMBL had withdrawn the challenge by withdrawal of the writ petition before the Division Bench of this Court without reserving any such liberty to reagitate the issue. The impugned order, Annexure-A, dated 25.5.2006 cannot be said to be without jurisdiction or passed in brea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
