TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (6) TMI 604
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the claim before the Resolution Professional of the Corporate Debtor. 2. The Applicant submits that the 2nd Respondent (M/s. Leo Primecomp Pvt. Ltd. had obtained 5 EPCG Authorisations between 17.03.2010 and 13.10.2011 from the Joint Director-General of Foreign Trade, Chennai based on which 2nd Respondent had imported capital goods and availed customs duty exemption under Customs Notification: 102/2009-Customs dated 11.09.2009 (page. 12-17 of the application) for a total sum of Rs. 14,62,12,894/-. As per the conditions of the above Notification, 2nd Respondent (importer) had to fulfil their export obligation of six times of the duty saved value within a period of 6 years from the date of issue of EPCG Authorisation. It is further submitte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n respect of 5 licences only. It is further submitted that on verification in the DGFT website, it was seen that Redemption Letter had already been issued to one Licence bearing EPCG Authorisation No. 0430001576 dated 19.03.2004 and hence there is claim for 5 Licences only as mentioned in the claim Form-B. Further, the 2nd Respondent had vide their letter dated 03.02.2020 informed the Applicant's office that CIRP has been initiated against in respect of M/s. Leo Primecomp Private Limited. 4. It is submitted that the Applicant, as a rightful Operational Creditor is eligible to claim and receive the amount payable to Government of India. The Applicant seeks (i) a direction to the 1st Respondent/IRP to include the Applicant's claim ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ondent (page. 12-18). (iv) Consequently, the office of Foreign Trade Department issued a notice dated 07.08.2020 to the 2nd Respondent advising that the EPCG Committee/Police relaxation committee at DGFT, New Delhi may be approached since the Applicant has no authority to extend the period of exemption beyond 2 years. (v) The applicant is unable to quantify their claim since the same is not crystallised due to pending finalisation of the exemption by the EPCG Committee and therefore the claim is only contingent on the outcome of the same. Hence, the Applicant does not have any locus to file this application. 6. Upon scrutinising the documents placed before this Adjudicating Authority, it is seen in accordance with secti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... last-minute filings also led to disputes being filed at the eleventh-hour before the concerned NCLT, over the inclusion/acceptance of such claims. 9. Although the introduction of a fixed timeline for submission of claims was more than welcome, the amended Regulation 12 (2) seems to have raised more issues than it purports to resolve. The amended Regulation 12 (2) is silent in regard to the status of creditors who have missed the deadline and are desirous of filing their claims. 10. Therefore, the question that arises is whether the 90 day period referred to in Regulation 12 (2) a mandatory timeline which had to be adhered to, or could any delay beyond 90 days be condoned by either the IRP/RP or the NCLT? 11. In the recent orders/j....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Hon'ble NCLT, New Delhi, while considering an application of similar nature filed by Central Board of Goods and Service Tax Department indicated that it was irrelevant whether the claim is considered or not, since the government dues would always be reflected in the books of accounts of the corporate debtor and the RP/IRP would be required to take cognizance of the dues as per the books of accounts. Therefore, the application was allowed. The relevant portion of the order is reproduced herein below: "It is true that the regulation 12(2) after amendment has granted liberty to a creditor who has failed to submit the claim with the proof within the time stipulated in the public announcement and such a claimant could submit the cla....