Sandvik Asia Ltd. Vs. Ccex

Sandvik Asia Ltd. vs Ccex

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Mar 28, 2007

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/45194

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/45194
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: A Wadhwa, V T M.
Decided On: Mar 28, 2007
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sandvik Asia Ltd.

Respondent

Ccex

Legal References

Reported In: (2007)(118)ECC52

Excerpt

.....(e) the original authority, while sanctioning the refund claim mentioned above, has adjusted the same towards the dues pending in respect of m/s choksi tubes co. ltd. and the decision of the original authority has been upheld by the commissioner (appeals).4. the learned c.a. for the appellant submits that they are a new company different from the choksi tubes co. ltd. not withstanding the fact that the former was holding 49% of the shares till april, 2001 and they were continuing to work from the premises of the erstwhile m/s choksi tubes co. ltd. 6. we have carefully considered the rival submissions. there is no doubt that the appellant company is eligible for the rebate claims and accordingly, the same have been sanctioned. there is also no dispute that amount of rs. 16,52,899/- + rs. 40,70,098/- are due from m/s choksi tubes co. ltd. the dispute is whether the amount due from m/s choksi tubes co. ltd. can be adjusted from the refund due to the appellant company. the general principle that the share holder is different from the company, should be respected. the joint venture company is a new company different form m/s choksi tubes co. ltd. no doubt m/s choksi tubes co. ltd., who owes money to the dept. was instrumental, initially, in forming the appellant company. but the former has been distancing and delinking itself from the appellant over a period time. the separation has the approval of the high courts as well. the department was at liberty to proceed against m/s choksi tubes co. ltd. for recovery of the dues from them and it may not be appropriate and legal to recover the dues from the money due to the present appellant company, which is a legal entity different from m/s choksi tubes co. ltd. 7. in the light of above, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeals with consequential relief, if any.

Full Judgment

1. These appeals arise out of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 1225 to 1226/2002 (62 to 63-Ahd-II) CE/Commr(A)/Ahd. dated 17.10.2002.

(a) M/s Sandvik Choksi Ltd. exported two consignments in Dec. 2000 on payment of duty through merchant exporter M/s Sandvik Asia Ltd. of Pune and they were found eligible for rebate of duty amounting to Rs. 5,91,964/- in one case and Rs. 6,81,357/- in another case. There is no dispute about the eligibility of the rebate claim, which has been sanctioned.

(b) The demands amounting to Rs. 40,70,998/- and Rs. 16,52,899.60 pending since 1998 in respect of M/s Choksi Tubes Co. Ltd. and this is also not in dispute. The arrears involved in both the cases are due for recovery.

(c) The history of evolution of the present appellant is claimed as follows: M/s Choksi Tubes Co. Ltd. and Sandvik AB of Sweden have entered into a joint venture agreement dated 10.9.1996 and promoted a new company called Sanvik Choksi Pvt. Ltd. with Choksi Tubes Co.

Ltd. holding share of 49% and balance 51% being held by M/s Sandvik AB. Subsequently in January, 97 the company became a Public Ltd. Company with the name Sandvik Choksi Ltd.; in April 2001 the new company acquired the shares owned by Choksi Tubes Co. Ltd and got renamed as Sandvik Steel Asia Pvt. Ltd. This new company merged with Sandvik Asia Ltd. w.e.f. 1.1.2002 as per the orders of the Hon'ble Court of Mumbai, Ahmedabad and Bangalore.

(d) Choksi Tubes Co. Ltd. has reportedly taken a plea before the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in SCA No. 2285/89 that though the name of company was changed from M/s Choksi Tubes Co. Ltd. to M/s Sandvik Choksi Pvt. Ltd., there was no change in the asset, liability and to other means of Partnership Company.

(e) The original authority, while sanctioning the refund claim mentioned above, has adjusted the same towards the dues pending in respect of M/s Choksi Tubes Co. Ltd. and the decision of the original authority has been upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals).

4. The learned C.A. for the appellant submits that they are a new company different from the Choksi Tubes Co. Ltd. not withstanding the fact that the former was holding 49% of the shares till April, 2001 and they were continuing to work from the premises of the erstwhile M/s Choksi Tubes Co. Ltd. 6. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. There is no doubt that the appellant company is eligible for the rebate claims and accordingly, the same have been sanctioned. There is also no dispute that amount of Rs. 16,52,899/- + Rs. 40,70,098/- are due from M/s Choksi Tubes Co. Ltd. The dispute is whether the amount due from M/s Choksi Tubes Co. Ltd. can be adjusted from the refund due to the appellant company. The general principle that the share holder is different from the company, should be respected. The joint venture company is a new company different form M/s Choksi Tubes Co. Ltd. No doubt M/s Choksi Tubes Co. Ltd., who owes money to the Dept. was instrumental, initially, in forming the appellant company. But the former has been distancing and delinking itself from the appellant over a period time. The separation has the approval of the High Courts as well. The department was at liberty to proceed against M/s Choksi Tubes Co. Ltd. for recovery of the dues from them and it may not be appropriate and legal to recover the dues from the money due to the present appellant company, which is a legal entity different from M/s Choksi Tubes Co. Ltd. 7. In the light of above, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeals with consequential relief, if any.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Sandvik Asia Ltd. vs Ccex Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge A Wadhwa, V T M.