# In the matter of Office of the Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax vs. Rakesh Singala,
Liquidator of M/s. Apple Industries Ltd. Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1215 of 2022

> NCLAT judgment dated 2023-01-04. Citation: TCN-2023-NCLAT-00793. This appeal was filed against the order dated 16.09.2022 passed by the Adjudicating Authority…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 4 Jan 2023
- **Citation:** TCN-2023-NCLAT-00793
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/office-of-the-assistant-commissioner-of-central-tax-vs-rakesh-singala-liquidator-e93a977c

## Summary

### Background

This appeal was filed against the order dated 16.09.2022 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), New Delhi Bench (Court-II) allowing IA 1842/ND/2021 filed by the Liquidator. The Adjudicating Authority directed the Appellant, who was the Respondent in the Application, to refund amounts of Rs.25,46,588/- and Rs.1,08,797/- to the liquidation account of the Corporate Debtor, M/s. Apple Industries Ltd. The liquidator filed an application for refund of the amounts, which were claimed to be refunded as amounts paid by the Corporate Debtor in response to proceedings initiated under the Central Excise Act, 1944. The order confirming the demand of Rs.25,46,588/- was set aside by CESTAT, Hyderabad, on 06.11.2019, granting consequential relief to the

…

## Facts

The case involves an appeal against an order by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal) directing a refund to the liquidation account of M/s. Apple Industries Ltd., the Corporate Debtor. The liquidator filed an application for refund of amounts related to proceedings under the Central Excise Act, 1944. The order confirming the demand of Rs.25,46,588/- was previously set aside by CESTAT, Hyderabad. CIRP was initiated against the Corporate Debtor on 13.03.2019, and liquidation was ordered on 13.02.2020. The liquidator filed an application IA 1842/ND/2021 seeking a refund of Rs.25,46,588/- and Rs.1,08,797/-. The Adjudicating Authority allowed the application. The appellant challenged the order, arguing that the application for refund was time-barred

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, are inconsistent with …

**Ratio:** Section 238 of the IBC provides that the provisions of the IBC shall have effect,

…

**Reasoning:** The NCLAT reasoned that Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, is an enabling

…

**Interpretation:** The court interpreted Section 238 of the IBC to mean that only inconsistent

…

**Application:** The NCLAT applied the principle that only inconsistent provisions are

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** Ashok Bh…
- **Appellants:** Office of the…
- **Respondents:** M/s Apple…; Rakesh Si…
- **Advocates:** Samiksha G…; Shivalika Rudra…; +3 more

## Timeline

- **2019-03-13 — CIRP Init…**: Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) proceedings were initiated against the…
- **2019-09-27 — Order for…**: Corporate Debtor became entitled to make an Application to refund the deposit pursuant to…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 33(2) — Initiation of liquidation](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-33)

---

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/nclat-new-delhi/office-of-the-assistant-commissioner-of-central-tax-vs-rakesh-singala-liquidator-e93a977c