Imported cement concessional duty exemption under Notification 4/2006 challenged over RSP misdeclaration; demand, interest and s.114A penalty set asid...
The dominant issue was whether a Section 9 IBC application could be maintained by re-segregating invoices to assert default beyond the Section 10A protected period and to defeat dismissal by the Adjudicating Authority. The tribunal held that once the operational creditor expressly pleaded that only seven invoices aggregating to Rs. 1.65 crore were outside Section 10A, it could not later add further invoices to inflate default, as this would amount to shifting the goalposts and using IBC as a coercive recovery mechanism. Since the corporate debtor had deposited Rs. 1.65 crore by FDR with the registry towards those seven invoices, rejection of the Section 9 application was upheld and the appeal was dismissed, with liberty to pursue civil remedies for Section 10A-period claims. - NCLAT
The dominant issue was whether a Section 9 IBC application could be maintained by re-segregating invoices to assert default beyond the Section 10A protected period and to defeat dismissal by the Adjudicating Authority. The tribunal held that once the operational creditor expressly pleaded that only seven invoices aggregating to Rs. 1.65 crore were outside Section 10A, it could not later add further invoices to inflate default, as this would amount to shifting the goalposts and using IBC as a coercive recovery mechanism. Since the corporate debtor had deposited Rs. 1.65 crore by FDR with the registry towards those seven invoices, rejection of the Section 9 application was upheld and the appeal was dismissed, with liberty to pursue civil remedies for Section 10A-period claims. - NCLAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4814 
Join Channel 
