# In the matter of Apple Industries Limited IA 1842-ND-2021 in Company Petition No. (IB)-204(ND)-2019

> NCLT judgment dated 2022-09-16. Citation: TCN-2022-NCLT-01055. The case involves an application (IA No. 1842 of 2021) filed by the Liquidator of M/s Apple…

- **Court:** NCLT
- **Order date:** 16 Sept 2022
- **Citation:** TCN-2022-NCLT-01055
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclt-division-bench-court-i-chenn/apple-industries-limited-ia-1842-nd-2021-in-company-petition-no-ib-204nd-2019-e4a16c8f

## Summary

### Background

The case involves an application (IA No. 1842 of 2021) filed by the Liquidator of M/s Apple Industries Limited, seeking directions for the refund of certain amounts withheld by the GST Department (erstwhile Excise Department). The Liquidator argues that these amounts, which include Rs. 1,08,797/- and Rs. 25,46,588/-, along with interest, represent unlawful payments withheld by the Respondents (GST Department). The Liquidator contends that the IBC provisions should override any other civil law, including limitations under the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Respondents, however, argue that the refund claims are time-barred under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act and that they are bound by statutory provisions.

## Facts

Pooran Trading Private Limited initiated a Company Petition against Apple Industries Limited, which was admitted, leading to the initiation of Liquidation proceedings. Rakesh Singala was appointed as the Liquidator. The Liquidator filed an application seeking the refund of Rs. 1,08,797 and Rs. 25,46,588, which were withheld by the GST Department (erstwhile Excise Department). The amount of Rs. 1,08,797 was a pre-deposit made by Apple Industries Limited in relation to a Show Cause Notice. The amount of Rs. 25,46,588 related to another Show Cause Notice, for which CESTAT Hyderabad had decided in favor of Apple Industries Limited. The Respondents (GST Department) argued that the refund claims were time-barred under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the Respondents (GST Department) are obligated to refund Rs. 25,46,588/- and Rs. 1,08,797/- …

**Ratio:** The ratio is that the provisions of the IBC, specifically Section 238, have an overriding

…

**Reasoning:** The court reasoned that the CESTAT had already decided the entitlement of the Corporate

…

**Interpretation:** This issue involves interpreting the interplay between the IBC and the Central

…

**Application:** The court applied the ratio by stating that the IBC's overriding effect under

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** DHARMINDER…; L. N. G…
- **Appellants:** M/s. Pooran…
- **Respondents:** M/s Apple…; Office of the…

## Timeline

- **2018-03-07 — Show Cause…**: Respondent No.1 and 2 issued a Show Cause Notice to the Corporate Debtor in relation to…
- **2018-12-10 — Order No.-Original…**: The aforesaid demand culminated in the Order No.-Original No.11/2018 (C.Ex) dated…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 60(5) — Adjudicating Authority for corporate persons](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-60)

---

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/nclt-division-bench-court-i-chenn/apple-industries-limited-ia-1842-nd-2021-in-company-petition-no-ib-204nd-2019-e4a16c8f