TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (6) TMI 812
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....amount of Rs. 1,30,92,135/-; the Commissioner had sent the certificate to the Assistant Commissioner who was authorised by the Commissioner under Section 142(1)(c)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962, read with Rule 4 of the Customs (Attachment of Property of Defaulters for Recovery of Customs Dues) Rules 1995, specifying that an amount of Rs. 1,30,92,135/- is to be recovered from them. The petitioner was called upon to pay the said amount within seven days failing which steps would be taken to recover the amount in accordance with the provisions of the said Rules. The petitioner was also informed that, in addition thereto, they were liable to pay interest in accordance with Section 11AA of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short "the Act") and al....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... monthly instalments for payment of the arrears. Aggrieved by the order passed by the adjudicating authority under the Customs Act, the petitioner herein carried the matter in appeal to the CESTAT, Chennai in Appeal Nos.989 to 991 of 2010. Following the judgment of the Supreme Court in Twenty First Century Builders vs. CC, New Delhi, the CESTAT, Chennai dismissed the appeals except to the limited extent that fine and penalty were reduced. The CESTAT held that the adjudicating Commissioner had rightly held that the appellants had mis-declared that batteries were parts of IFW telephones with a view to avail the claimed exemption, instead of declaring the same as lead-acid batteries as indicated in the country of origin certificate; the order....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eason, therefore, to reopen the matter or to re-examine whether the order of the CESTAT, Chennai accords with law or not. On the question of priority of secured debts over crown debts, reliance is placed by Sri Unnam Muralidhar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, on Rana Girders Ltd. vs. Union of India. I n Rana Girders Ltd.3, M/s. P.J.Steels (P) Limited, had taken loans/financial accommodation from the Uttar Pradesh Financial Corporation (UPFC); and, on their defaulting in repayment, the UPFC took possession of the lands and buildings, and initiated proceedings under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act. The subject properties were put to sale and the appellant was found to be highest bidder. Consequently, a sale deed w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n, urged on behalf of the petitioner, also necessitates rejection. The Central Board of Excise and Customs, by Circular dated 28.02.2015, decided to allow recovery of arrears of taxes, interest and penalty in instalments. The power to allow such payment in monthly instalments was to be exercised by the Commissioner in his discretion for granting sanction to pay arrears in instalments upto a maximum of 24 monthly instalments, and by the Chief Commissioners for granting sanction to pay arrears in monthly instalments greater than 24 and upto a maximum of 36 monthly instalments. Sri Unnam Muralidhar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that a representation in this regard was made by the petitioner to the Chief Commissioner o....