Page 264 - ELT_1st September 2020_Vol 373_Part 5

702 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 373

“6.E : Government of India :-
(xviii) Not to claim any other liability which was not taken/disclosed in
the books by the old management or not provided in the package approved
by the Hon'ble BIFR from new Management.”
4. Further, to review the progress of the implementation of the scheme,
hearing was conducted on 24 March, 2003, in view of the demands raised by the
Central Excise Department. The Board directed the Department to strictly adhere
to the provisions of sanctioned scheme and not to raise any claim against the new
promoter that was not covered in the Sanctioned Scheme or disclosed in the
books of account prior to the cut-off date of the scheme. The following direction
was issued :
“16 (v). The Central Excise Department would strictly adhere to the
provisions of the SS, which would inter alia include the provisions laid out
in paras 6D(xii) and 6D(xiii) of the SS and would not raise any additional
claim against the new promoter, other than those envisaged in the SS, fail-
ing which, the Bench would be compelled to consider appropriate action(s)
for violation of the directions of the Bench, as may be deemed fit, according
to law. The Central Excise Department would also not initiate any punitive
action against the new promoter in violation of the provisions of section
22(1) of the Act, without specific prior approval of the Board.”
5. BIFR discharged the company from the purview of the Act by order
dated 1 August, 2005. It was observed :
“4(v) The new/incoming promoter would not be liable to payment
against any claim/liability, which was not disclosed in the books by the old
management or not provided in the scheme sanctioned by the BIFR for
transfer of the company to the new/incoming promoter as spelt out in Para
6D(xiii) & 6E(xviii), page 9 of SS-2000”.
“10 (ii) The unimplemented provisions, if any, including the provisions
as stated in Para 4(v) above’, of the MS-2000 would be implemented by all
concerned agencies, and would continue to be monitored by the company.”
6. The Commissioner (Appeals) after analyzing the factual position ob-
served as follows :-
“19. From perusal of the above, it is crystal clear that :-
(i) The liability in respect of dues pertains to the relevant OIOs i.e.
141/2001, dated 18-10-2001 and 5/2001, dated 23-2-2001 were not dis-
closed by the department or by the old management before the BIFR
and the same was not taken into account in the scheme sanctioned by
the BIFR.
(ii) The BIFR in the summary record of proceedings of the hearing held
on 22-5-2002, vide para 11, held that in case the dues mentioned by the
Department of Central Excise, pertained to the period prior to the cut-
off date (31-3-2000) mentioned in the SS, the new management was
protected against the recovery of such dues in terms of para 6(E)
(xviii) of the SS which provided that GOI would not claim from the
new management any other liability which was not taken/disclosed
in the books by the old management or not provided for the in the
package approved by BIFR (due to default of the old management or
the Deptt. in disclosing such dues) and the Bench also opined that old

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st September 2020  264