<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2012 (10) TMI 873 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217935</link>
    <description>Secured bank debts and recovery proceedings under the DRT and SARFAESI framework prevail over general claims of government priority unless a statute creates an express first charge. The common law priority of State dues yields to special recovery regimes for banks and secured creditors, and the Central Excise and Customs provisions then in force did not by themselves confer a first charge on departmental dues. Later first-charge provisions in those statutes were subject to expressly saved rights under the DRT Act and SARFAESI Act, so departmental action could not defeat pending secured recovery proceedings. The Department&#039;s claim to precedence was therefore limited to the extent it did not override the banks&#039; statutory enforcement rights.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 04 Apr 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 29 Nov 2012 13:13:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=191309" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (10) TMI 873 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217935</link>
      <description>Secured bank debts and recovery proceedings under the DRT and SARFAESI framework prevail over general claims of government priority unless a statute creates an express first charge. The common law priority of State dues yields to special recovery regimes for banks and secured creditors, and the Central Excise and Customs provisions then in force did not by themselves confer a first charge on departmental dues. Later first-charge provisions in those statutes were subject to expressly saved rights under the DRT Act and SARFAESI Act, so departmental action could not defeat pending secured recovery proceedings. The Department&#039;s claim to precedence was therefore limited to the extent it did not override the banks&#039; statutory enforcement rights.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Apr 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217935</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>