TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (1) TMI 307
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h; The present Appeal under Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013, has been filed by the Appellant being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order dated 15.09.2020 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (Court-V, New Delhi) in Appeal 771/252/ND/2019 whereby and whereunder appeal filed by the Appellant Company for restoration of the name of the Company in the Register maintained by the Registrar of Companies (RoC), NCT of Delhi and Haryana, after hearing the parties the Tribunal passed the following orders: "5. On perusal of documents, it is observed that applicant has failed to prove that when the name of the Company was struck off, it was in operation or that it remained in operations even after its name was struck off in t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nthly electric energy bills of Rajasthan State Electricity Board and on 30.09.1997, the Electricity Board had disconnected the power supply of unit, thereby the manufacturing activities of the company had been stopped permanently. Consequently, the staff of the company had started leaving the unit site and by the end of 1997 every person had shifted and no one was there in the premises of the company where unit was set up. After the closure of the unit the bank had recalled its loan which was repaid to them by disposing of the plant and machinery installed at the unit and the other sources of the management. iii) The Appellant Company was manufacturing the steel casting which is excisable product, as a good practice the management ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e High Court of Rajasthan and the order passed by the CESTAT was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the Appellate Tribunal on 13.05.2016 (Annexure- 9 at page 130 to 137 of the Appeal Paper Book). During the pendency of the second appeal, the Centra Excise Department had attached the Industrial plot allotted to the company by the RIICO and sold it in public auction on 05.04.2014 at the price of Rs. 3,01,00,000/-. The first review petition was filed by the appellant company before the CESTAT, which was granted and forwarded to the Commissioner, Central Excise, Alwar, Jaipur on 30.09.2016. Thereafter, the appellant company had filed its reply on 04.11.2016 to the Show Cause Notice No. V (72)235/DEM/98 dated 10.09.1998 before the Com....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Office, Alwar, Rajasthan on 27.02.2019. Thereafter, the Assistant Commissioner ordered that the appellant company is entitled for the consequential refund claim of Rs. 1,79,20,377/- and interest of Rs. 50,50,910/. The total refund of Rs. 2,29,81,287/- is confirmed by the Assistant Commissioner which would be paid in cash through RTGS, therefore, it is just and equitable to restore the name of the company in the register of companies as the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held in the case of Siddhant Garg & Anr. Vs. Registrar of Companies & Ors. (Co. Pet. 200/2011). 4. It is further submitted that that the company had filed Income Tax Returns for the Assessment Year 1995-96, 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-99 and also submitted its financial st....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Companies Act, 2013 and Rule 9 of the Companies (Removal of Names of Companies from the Register of Companies) Rules, 2016, after expiry of time as mentioned in notice published/sent and non-receipt of any objection from the company/directors, Dissolution in form STK-7 having effect from 21.08.2017 was published on the website of Ministry of Corporate Affairs on 01.09.2017. Further, it is stated that since the Company was neither able to prove that it was carrying any business before it was strike off nor have produced any supporting information for just and equitable ground for revival before the Tribunal, therefore, in view of the above, the present Appeal deserves to be dismissed with exemplary cost. 7. On the other hand, the Res....