TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Secured Creditors' Priority Upheld Over Excise Dept Dues; SARFAESI Act Overrides Central Excise Act Section 11E</h1> <h3>State of H.P. & Ors, M/s Shivalik Fibres Pvt. Ltd Versus State Bank of India & Another, Indian Overseas Bank & Ors, Dr. Ajit Pal Jain, & Ors. Canara Bank & Another, Punjab National Bank & Ors, Ajay Kumar & Ors, M/s Aditya Industries & Ors And Ms/ Infallible Pharma Pvt. Ltd. & Ors</h3> The HC of Himachal Pradesh dismissed the Letters Patent Appeals concerning the priority of State (Excise Department) over a secured creditor's debt. The ... Recovery of dues - priority of charges - whether the State (Excise Department) will have priority over the secured creditor’s debt? - HELD THAT:- The issue involved in the present appeals is no longer res integra and has been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [2022 (2) TMI 1171 - SUPREME COURT] where it was held that Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise could not have invoked the powers under Rule 173 Q(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 on 26.03.2007 and 29.03.2007 for confiscation of land, buildings etc., when on such date, the said Rule 173Q(2) was not in the Stature books, having been omitted by a notification dated 12.05.2000. Secondly, the dues of the secured creditor, i.e. the Appellant-bank, will have priority over the dues of the Central Excise Department, as even after insertion of Section 11E in the Central Excise Act, 1944 w.e.f. 08.04.2011, and the provisions contained in the SARFAESI Act, 2002 will have an overriding effect on the provisions of the Central Excise Act of 1944. Since the question involved in the present appeal is no longer res integra and has been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Punjab National Bank’s case, all the Letters Patent Appeals are dismissed. Issues involved: Priority of State (Excise Department) over secured creditor's debt.Summary:The High Court of Himachal Pradesh disposed of the Letters Patent Appeals as the issue involved in all the appeals was the same, concerning whether the State (Excise Department) would have priority over the secured creditor's debt. The respondents argued that this issue had already been settled by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 2196 of 2012, Punjab National Bank vs. Union of India and others. The Supreme Court clarified that the secured creditor would have priority over the Excise Department's dues, even after the insertion of Section 11E in the Central Excise Act in 2011. The SARFAESI Act, 2002 provisions would have an overriding effect on the Central Excise Act of 1944. The Court emphasized that the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise could not have confiscated assets when the relevant rule was not in force. The Court dismissed all the Letters Patent Appeals based on the settled legal position established by the Supreme Court.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
