TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 1014X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... interest on refund. Therefore, following the aforesaid order of the Delhi High Court by conclusion and disposal of this appeal would not affect adversely the resolution plan therefore, in this appeal proceeding can be continued and appeal can be disposed of. Therefore, the appeal is taken up for disposal. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the claim of interest on refund referring the provision of Section 27 A of Customs Act, 1962 on the ground that the refund was payable within three months from the order dated 13.04.2012 of Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the refund was allowed - From the plain reading of Section 27A it is clear that the assessee is entitled for the refund if the same is not refunded within three months from the date of receipt of application under sub section (1) of Section 27. In the clear provision under Section 27 A and the landmark judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd [ 2011 (10) TMI 16 - SUPREME COURT] , the appellant is entitled for interest on the amount already refunded for the period from 22.07.2003 (three months after the date of application) till 25.06.2012 (date of grant of refund). As regard the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erest paid by the appellant. By the adjudication order dated 05.11.2003 though the refund was sanctioned but the same was credited into consumer welfare fund on the ground of unjust enrichment. The appellant being aggrieved by the adjudication order dated 05.11.2003 filed writ petition before the Hon ble High Court of Gujarat. The Hon ble High Court of Gujarat directed the appellant vide order date 15.03.2011 to file an appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) against the order dated 05.11.2003. The appellant filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) on 30.03.2011 which was allowed by Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 13.04.2012. Thereafter, the appellant filed a revised claim with interest on refund. The Adjudicating Authority vide order dated 25.06.2012 though granted the refund of amount paid by the appellant but rejected the claim of interest on such refund on the ground that there is no specific order about interest by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant being aggrieved by the order dated 25.06.2012 filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeal). The Ld. Commissioner (Appeal) vide impugned order dated 18.07.2013 rejected the claim of interest on the ground that refu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... action which may have an effect of dissipating or diminishing the debtor s assets during the period of its insolvency resolution. 5. Section 14 (1) (a) of the Code runs as under:- 14. (1) Subject to provisions of subsections (2) and (3), on the insolvency commencement date, the Adjudicating Authority shall by order declare moratorium for prohibiting all of the following, namely: (a) the institution of suits or continuation of pending suits or proceedings against the corporate debtor including execution of any judgment, decree or order in any court of law, tribunal, arbitration panel or other authority; 6. Admittedly the term proceedings as is mentioned in Section 14 (1) (a) of the Code is not preceded by the word all to indicate the moratorium provisions would apply to all the proceedings against the corporate debtor. 7. In Canara Bank vs Deccan Chronicle Holdings Limited Company Appeal No.147/2017, the court has already recognized the moratorium provision does not apply to all proceedings viz to proceedings under Article 32 or 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. The object of the Code is to provide relief to the corporate debtor through standstil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... kruptcy Law Reforms Committee on the rationale and design of the Code also demonstrates the moratorium is to apply to recovery actions and filing of new claims against the corporate debtor and the purpose behind moratorium is there should be no additional stress on the assets of the corporate debtor. The report of the Bankruptcy Law Reforms Committee has been relied upon by the Supreme Court in M/s Innovative Industries Limited vs. ICICI Bank another 2017 SCC OnLine SC 1025. 12. The learned counsel for the respondent has though argued that once the moratorium comes into effect, no proceedings against the corporate debtor may continue. No doubt to the said proposition of law as stated above, but one need to see the nature of the proceedings; if such proceedings is against the corporate debtor or is in its favour. Stay of proceedings against an award in favour of the corporate debtor would rather be stalking the debtor s effort to recover its money and hence would not fall in the embargo of Section 14 (1) (a) of the Code. 13. The fact the petitioners did file a counter claim before the learned arbitrator, admittedly, is disallowed. An extreme scenario would be allowing of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the moratorium provision would apply to all those proceedings which are against the corporate debtor. However, in the present appeal the proceeding is in favour of the appellant (Corporate Debtor) as in this appeal the appellant is claiming the interest on refund. Therefore, following the aforesaid order of the Delhi High Court by conclusion and disposal of this appeal would not affect adversely the resolution plan therefore, I am of the view that in this appeal proceeding can be continued and appeal can be disposed of. Therefore, the appeal is taken up for disposal. 4.2 I find that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the claim of interest on refund referring the provision of Section 27 A of Customs Act, 1962 on the ground that the refund was payable within three months from the order dated 13.04.2012 of Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the refund was allowed. To understand the correct interpretation of Section 27 A, the same is reproduced below:- SECTION [27A. Interest on delayed refunds. If any duty ordered to be refunded under sub-section (2) of section 27 to an applicant is not refunded within three months from the date of receipt of application under sub-sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
