Assistant Commissioner Cgst & Central ... vs Bkm Industries Limited Through Sh ...

Assistant Commissioner CGST & Central Excise, Division-X Daman Commissionerate, Daman ...Appellant

Versus

BKM Industries Ltd. Through Pratim Bayal, RP ...Respondent

Present: For Appellant: Present but appearance not marked. For Respondent: Mr. Rishav Banerjee, Mr. Rishav Banerjee, Mr. Shambo Nandy, Mr. Rajarshi Banerjee, Advocates

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

02.02.2024: I.A. No. 225 of 2024: This is an application praying for

condonation of 55 days' delay in refiling the Appeal. The ground taken in the

affidavit is that considerable time was taken in getting instructions, get signed

copy of documents and cure the defects pointed out. It is submitted that the

documents were to be received from Vapi, Gujrat, which took time. Cause

shown sufficient, refiling delay is condoned. I.A. No.225 of 2024 stands

disposed of.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This Appeal has been filed

against order dated 19.09.2023 by which order the Adjudicating Authority has

upheld the decision of the Resolution Professional rejecting the claim filed by

the Appellant. The CIRP was commenced and IRP issued public notice calling

Cont'd.../ -2-

for submission of claims. Last date for submission of claims was 30.03.2021.

Resolution Plan was approved by the CoC on 09.06.2022 and immediately

application for approval of plan was filed before the Adjudicating Authority.

The Appellant filed claim on 24.11.2022, which was not accepted by the

Resolution Professional and the appropriate information was sent to the

Appellant. An I.A. was filed by the Appellant being I.A. No. 421/KB/2023,

which has been rejected by the impugned order.

3. The Adjudicating Authority in the impugned order has noticed the

timelines in Para 5, which are as follows:

"5. Let us understand the timeline from the date of initiation of CIRP till the date the claim was rejected.

List of Event No. of days dates from CIRP 30.12.2020 Initiation of CIRP 0 02.01.2021 Form A publication 3 24.11.2022 Claim filed before the 694 Resolution Professional 29.11.2022 Claim rejected 699 16.12.2022 Request for re- 716 consideration of claim. 20.12.2022 Claim rejected 720

4. Admittedly, the claim was filed by the Appellant after approval of

Resolution Plan by the CoC. We, thus, are of the view that no error has been

committed by the Adjudicating Authority in rejecting the I.A. filed by the

Appellant. Appeal is dismissed.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.85 of 2024 -3-

5. Learned counsel for the Appellant has relied on the judgment of Hon'ble

Supreme Court in "State Tax Officer (1) vs. Rainbow Papers Ltd." and

submits that only the ground of delay claim could not be rejected. In this

reference judgment in the matter of "M/s RPS Infrastructure Ltd. vs. Mukul

Kumar and Anr., Civil Appeal No.7762 of 2023" is referred where the

Hon'ble Supreme Court held that after plan is approved by the CoC, there can

be no delayed acceptance of the claim. We, thus, do not find any merit in the

submission. Appeal is dismissed.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)

[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) Archana/nn

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.85 of 2024