Oceanic Tropical Fruits Private Limited Versus The Assistant Commissioner (TRC), The Assistant Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, The Superintendent of GST and Central Excise (Maduranthakam-Range I)
Central Excise
2017 (10) TMI 1120 – MADRAS HIGH COURT – TMI
MADRAS HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 5-10-2017
W.P.No.23860 of 2017 WMP.Nos.25091 and 25092 of 2017
Central Excise
T. S. Sivagnanam, J.
\nFor the Petitioner : Mr.N.Surya Senthil
\nFor the Respondents : Mr.V.Sundareswaran
\nORDER
\nHeard Mr.N.Surya Senthil, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.V.Sundareswaran, the learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the respondents.
\n2. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition, challenging the notice issued b<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n ting notice for the respondents. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n the petitioner, viz. ICICI Bank had moved the National Company Law Tribunal (Division Bench) Chennai (NCLT) by filing CP\/564(IB)\/CB\/2017, under Section 7 read with Rule 4 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and the NCLT has passed an order on 13.9.2017, appointing Mr.C.Ramasubramaniam, Insolvency Resolution Professional (IRP) as proposed by the Financial Creditor, and issued other directions to the said IRP. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Oceanic Tropical Fruits Private Limited Versus The Assistant Commissioner (TRC), The Assistant Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, The Superintendent of GST and Central Excise (Maduranthakam-Range I)Central Excise2017 (10) TMI 1120 – MADRAS HIGH COURT – TMIMADRAS HIGH COURT – HCDated:- 5-10-2017W.P.No.23860 of 2017 WMP.Nos.25091 and 25092 of 2017 Central ExciseT. S. Sivagnanam, J. For … Continue reading “Oceanic Tropical Fruits Private Limited Versus The Assistant Commissioner (TRC), The Assistant Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, The Superintendent of GST and Central Excise (Maduranthakam-Range I)”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-8419","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8419","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=8419"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8419\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=8419"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=8419"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=8419"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the garnishee notice issued by the third respondent for recovery of the arrears of central excise duty.
\n3. The first respondent was magnanimous enough to grant permission to the petitioner to pay the arrears in 18 equal monthly instalments of Rs. 21.54 lakhs each. However, the petitioner has now paid only four instalments and defaulted in payment of the fifth instalment, which necessitated the third respondent to pass the impugned garnishee notice.
\n4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to financial difficulty, the petitioner could not honour the commitment, but now they are ready and willing to pay the monthly instalments promptly and that some reason<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n5. In the light of the above development, the petitioner can no longer maintain the present Writ Petition. Accordingly the Writ Petition stands dismissed. It is open to the respondent\/Department to initiate appropriate proceedings for recovery of the dues in accordance with rules. However, there shall be no order as to costs.<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n