Page 265 - ELT_1st September 2020_Vol 373_Part 5

2020 ] COMMR. OF C. EX. & S.T., JAIPUR-I v. RAJASTHAN EXPLOSIVES & CHEMICALS LTD. 703

management was legally bound to bear the ultimate liability in re-
spect of such undisclosed dues.
(iii) The BIFR, vide Para 9 of summary record of proceedings of the subse-
quent review hearing held on 24-3-2003, held that these claims were
neither raised by the Deptt. during the circulation of the DRS nor even
during the PH held on 2-5-2000 when the Bench heard the objec-
tions/suggestions from the concerned agencies and against clarified
that the new management would not be liable for payment of any ad-
ditional claim from Central Excise Department, which was not cov-
ered in the SS/disclosed in the books of account prior to the scheme
sanctioned by the Board.
(iv) The BIFR, vide Para 16(v) of summary record of proceedings of the
subsequent review hearing held on 24-3-2003, held that 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 ac-
tion(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 ap-
proval of the Board.
(v) In the reply submitted by the central excise department before the
BIFR in MA No. 444/2013 in compliance of order dated 26-9-2013
passed by the BIFR categorically mentioned that Central Excise de-
partment has given the benefit of the sanctioned scheme to the appel-
lant-company in four cases involving revenue of Rs. 462.62 Lakhs.
(vi) Sh. Kamlakar Sharma, ASG of India, vide letter dated 15-1-2017
opined that the order passed by the BIFR is a judicial order and in case
the Department is feeling aggrieved with the same then the appropri-
ate remedy is to file an appeal before the AAIFR against the order
passed by the BIFR and also that until the order passed by the BIFR is
modified/set aside by any appellate authority, the same is required to
be complied with in the strict sense notwithstanding the fact that the
Act in the view of the Department provides other way round.
(vii) The Hon’ble High Court, Jaipur vide order 17-5-2017 in the appeal
filed by the department has held that the BIFR vide order dated 22-11-
2000 granted immunity to the appellant from recovery of arrear per-
taining to the period prior to cut-off date i.e. 31-3-2000; the recovery of
arrears arising after the cut-off date i.e. 31-3-2000 can be effected be-
cause no immunity has been granted for the period after cut-off date,
under Section 11(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The dues are prior
to 31st March, 2000.
(viii) Sh. K.C. Meena, Assistant Commissioner, CGST Division, Bharatpur
during the course of personal hearing held on 16-10-2018 inter alia
admitted that letter C. No. CE-20/7/Misc./RECL/96/2784, dated 31-
10-2013, having department affidavit, wherein para 9 of the said affi-
davit/comments, it has been stated that department has given benefit
of the sanctioned scheme, involving revenue of Rs. 462.62 lacs; Rs.
462.62 lacs includes the amount pertaining to OIO No. 5/2001, dated

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st September 2020  265