TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 670
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ght and been granted nine Advance Licences (Duty Entitlement Export Certificate - DEEC) for the import of antibiotic chemicals, availing the benefit under Customs Notification No.149/1995 dated 19.09.1995. The benefit was subject to the satisfaction of various conditions, including the fulfilment of export obligations. 3.Upon arrival of the consignments, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) inspected the imports and recorded statements from the agent of the importer, noticing discrepancies in the description of the raw materials imported free of customs duty. Proceedings were initiated by the competent officers of the DRI by way of show cause notices and replies were solicited from the assessee. 4. After consideration of the replies and affording personal hearings, an Order-in-Original came to be passed on 28.03.2000 by the Commissioner of Customs demanding customs duty aggregating to Rs. 81,60,861/- (Rs.81.60 lakhs approx.) in terms of the proviso to Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 (in short 'Act') read with Customs Notification No.149/1995 dated 19.09.1995 along with equal penalty under Section 114(A) and penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- under Section 112(A) of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....R) in terms of the applicable provisions of the Sick Industrial Companies Act, 1985 (SICA) with a scheme for rehabilitation. 12. A scheme for rehabilitation had been ordered as early as in 2003. Thereafter, the assessee, finding it difficult to achieve rehabilitation in terms of the Scheme that had been framed, sought amalgamation of their company with the present petitioner by the BIFR invoking the power of the BIFR under Section 18(1)(c) of the SICA, and presented a modified scheme for revival. 13. The Modified Rehabilitation Scheme put forth in Case No.133 of 1998 came to be ordered and reference is made to the amalgamation at paragraph 6.1(2) thereof, in the following terms:- '6.1 (2) Merger of M/s POL with M/s SMSPL: In order to revive the company, M/s POL proposes merger of the company with M/s SMSPL which is in the same line of business for last 20 years. M/s SMSPL has potential to market POL products in domestic and overseas market. M/s SMSPL proposes to merge the entire undertaking of M/s POL by transferring it to M/s SMSPL which will be called "Transferee Company". The sick company M/s POL will be merged with M/s SMSPL and M/s POL will be called "T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....business losses which have lapsed. 4) To consider to exempt the transferee company from the provisions of section 41(1) and 43B of the Income Tax Act 1961 in respect of the relief and concessions availed from banks and financial institutions and other agencies under the scheme or otherwise. 5) To consider to waive all the penalties interest and liquidated damages of the transferor company on the demands crystallized on finalization of the appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Hyderabad in respect of disputed demand of Rs. 105.42 lakh. The crystallized amount on disposal of appeals pending before ITAT would be repaid in 16 quarterly equal installments on interest free basis. 6) To consider that the liabilities, which are under litigation/appeal, on crystallization, after exercise of all the legal remedies available to the company, shall be paid, over a period of four (4) years, on interest free basis. 7) To exempt the company/its directors/ the officers from the penal financial provisions of the Income Tax Act. 8.5 From Central Excise Department 1) To consider to waive all penalties, interest and liquidated dama....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly cognizant of the matter from the start and have had adequate opportunity to put forth their objections in relation to the Modified Rehabilitation Scheme. The BIFR has consciously used the phrase 'to consider' only in regard to Income tax and Central Excise dues, leaving no avenue open for any other interpretation. 20. In fact, the implead petition filed by the Commissioner of Customs specifically refers to the directions under paragraph 8.6 of the Modified Rehabilitation Scheme. Hence, we are unable to accept the argument of the learned counsel for the respondents to the effect that no positive direction has been issued in respect of the demand of Rs. 81.60 lakhs raised under Order-in- Original dated 28.03.2000. This argument is rejected. 21.The second argument specifically put forth by Mr.Santhanaraman is that there is no reference to the customs case anywhere in paragraphs 8.6 or 8.7. Though there is specific reference to the demand of Rs. 81.60 lakhs in paragraph 8.7, this is not a demand raised by the DGFT. He would hence submit that the subject matter of Order-in-Original dated 23.08.2000 has been left untouched under the Modified Rehabilitation Scheme. 22.We are u....