TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 135
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....21.10.2024 passed by respondent no.2 demanding a duty drawback of Rs. 10,01,724 (Rupees Ten Lakhs One Thousand Seven Hundred and Twenty-Four only/-) under Section 75 (1) along with interest under Section 75 A (2) of the Customs Act, 1962 and Rules 18 (2) of the Customs and Central Excise Drawbacks Rules, 2017. 3. Succinctly, the petitioner herein is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, bearing CIN: U31200WB1992PLC273446 and its registered office at 89 Mouza, Waria Road, Angadpur, Bardhaman, Durgapur MC, West Bengal - 713215, involved in the manufacturing of ferroalloys and other metals, under the name and style of "Karthik Alloys ltd." 4. The petitioner has been successfully resolved under a corporate insolvency resol....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hen the NCLT approved the resolution plan. 7. The petitioner is now under 100% ownership of QVC Exports Limited. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Goa (Respondent No.2) issued an order dated 21.10.2024 directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 10,01,724/- as duty drawbacks under Section 75 (1) of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") along with interest under Section 75A (2) read with rule 18 (2) of the Customs and Central Excise Drawback Rules, 2017. 8. Being aggrieved by the order dated 21.10.2024 passed by respondent no. 2 demanding a duty drawback of Rs. 10,01,722/- (Rs. Ten Lakhs, one thousand and seven hundred and twenty-Four only/-) along with interest, the present petition is filed. 9. In ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in respect of the exports which occurred in 2018 before the initiation of the CIRP. It is submitted that such production of e-BRC(s) was a statutory obligation of the petitioner under the FEMA. It is further contended that the obligation cast on the petitioner concerning the period for production of E-BRC(s) as contemplated under FEMA predates the initiation of CIRP. 12. The respondents contend that the submission of the petitioner that given the approval of the Resolution Plan, the said demand amounts to a waiver of any statutory obligations of the Corporate Debtor is unfounded. 13. It is submitted by the respondents that the petition is not maintainable as a statutory remedy for filing an appeal is contemplated under Section 128....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he obligations and transgressions accrued before the resolution plan was approved. 18. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under Section 31 of the IBC once a resolution plan has been accepted, the respondents cannot raise any claims now that the CIRP has been concluded. Further, he submits that the Show Cause Notice was issued by the respondents during the moratorium period, under Section 14, hence all subsequent proceedings are barred. The respondents may account for its liability but not by initiating proceedings once the CIRP has been concluded. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ghanshyam Mishra and Sons Private Limited Vs. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itioner and the respondents. It would be at the outset relevant to take note of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ghanshyam Mishra (Supra), which the NCLT has relied upon in its order dated 03.03.2023. The NCLT has considered the said judgement and in paragraphs 7.10 and 7.11 held as under: 7.10 In terms of the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ghanshyam Mishra and Sons Private Limited v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited, "on the date of approval of the Resolution Plan by the Adjudicating Authority, all such claims, which are not a part of resolution plan, shall stand extinguished and no person will be entitled to initiate or continue any proceedings in, respect to a claim, which i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... applicant as a "fresh slate". It has been held that "107. ...A successful resolution applicant cannot suddenly be faced with "undecided" claims after the resolution plan submitted by him has been accepted as this would amount to a hydra head popping up which would throw into uncertainty amounts payable by a prospective resolution applicant who would successfully take over the business of the corporate debtor. All claims must be submitted to and decided by the resolution professional so that a prospective resolution applicant knows exactly what has to be paid in order that it may then take over and run the business of the corporate debtor. This the successful resolution applicant does on a fresh slate, as has been pointed out by us....