# In the matter of Patanjali Foods Limited vs. Commissioner of Customs

> HC judgment dated 2024-09-30. Citation: TCN-2024-HC-00028. This case involves an appeal against the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax…

- **Court:** HC
- **Order date:** 30 Sept 2024
- **Citation:** TCN-2024-HC-00028
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/high-courts-new-delhi/patanjali-foods-limited-vs-commissioner-of-customs-6cf978be

## Summary

### Background

This case involves an appeal against the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Bangalore. The appellant, Patanjali Foods Limited (formerly Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd), challenged the CESTAT's order which held that the appeal abates as per Rule 22 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982. The dispute originated from the import of Crude Palm Oil by Ruchi Soya, where the revenue contended that the oil was not of edible grade and thus not entitled to duty exemption. A show cause notice was issued, followed by an order confirming the demand for customs duty. During the pendency of the appeal, corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) was initiated against Ruchi Soya, and a resolution plan was approved by the NCLT, leading to the

…

## Facts

Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd. imported 8499.980 MTs of Crude Palm Oil at New Mangalore Port on 22.2.2011. 28 bills of entry dated 21.2.2011 were filed claiming duty exemption as per notification dated 1.3.2002. The revenue contended that the imported Crude Palm Oil was not of edible grade, disqualifying it for duty exemption. A show cause notice was issued on 17.2.2012. An Order-in-Original was passed on 31.7.2012, confirming a demand of ₹19,40,00,646/-. Ruchi Soya appealed to the CESTAT. During the appeal's pendency, CIRP commenced against Ruchi Soya on 8.12.2017/15.12.2017 under Section 7 of the IBC. The NCLT approved a modified resolution plan on 24.7.2019, leading to Ruchi Soya's name change to Patanjali Foods Limited. The revenue did not make a claim before the IRP

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the Appellate Tribunal erred in law as well as on facts while not following the law laid …

**Ratio:** The legal principle is that once a resolution plan is approved under the IBC, claims not

…

**Reasoning:** The court reasoned that the revenue's failure to submit a claim during the CIRP process

…

**Interpretation:** The interpretation of Section 31 and 32A of the IBC, as clarified by the

…

**Application:** In this case, the revenue did not submit a claim for the customs duty during

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** S.G.PA…; C.M. POO…
- **Appellants:** M/S Patanjali…
- **Respondents:** Ruchi Soya…; Commissioner of…

## Timeline

- **2011-02-22 — Import of Crude…**: Ruchi Soya imported Crude Palm…
- **2011-02-21 — Filing of Bills…**: 28 bills of entry were filed…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 7 — Initiation of corporate insolvency resolution…](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-7)

---

This is a preview. The full structured summary, issues, precedents and source judgment are available on CaseEase - Legal Intelligence Simplified: https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/high-courts-new-delhi/patanjali-foods-limited-vs-commissioner-of-customs-6cf978be