Point of Law: dues claimed by the appellants herein is one coming within the scope and ambit of 'operational debt', the Central Government would be the 'operational creditor' as defined under Sub-section- 20 of Section 5 of the Act. That even without the amendment made to Section 30 by 2019 Amendment Act, the dues to the Central Government including the statutory dues would be covered within the definition of "operational debt" owed to a creditor, in terms of Sub-Section 10 of Section 3 of "IBC".

JUDGMENT :

This appeal is listed to consider IA No.1/2021 seeking dismissal of the appeal on the basis of Section 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC” for the sake of convenience) and on the basis of the latest judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ghanashyam Mishra and Sons Private Limited through the Authorized Signatory vs. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited through the Director [2021 SCC Online SC 313] (Ghanashyam Mishra) to the effect that the claim of the Revenue as well as the liability of the respondent has stood extinguished permanently. But, with consent of learned counsel on both sides, it is heard finally.

2. This appeal is filed by the Union of India, the Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner of Customs, being aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge dated 06.03.2018 passed in writ petition No.41394/2015. In that petition, respondent herein had sought a declaration that the reassessment of the subject goods imported by the respondent on 17.09.2015 and demanding the higher rate of duty of 12.5% for clearance of the subject goods was illegal. The learned Single Judge, accepted the contentions of the respondent-importer and quashed Annexures – W, X, Y and Z and held that the respondent herein was liable to pay duty only at 7.5% based on Notification No.12/2012-Cus. dated 17.03.2012. Consequently, the differential duty as per Notification No.46/2015-Cus. dated 17.09.2015 at the rate of 12.5% was not applicable to the respondent herein.

3. Succinctly stated, the facts are, the respondent herein is a public limited Company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. According to the respondent, it entered into a contract on 27.07.2015 with ‘M/s.Aavanti Industries Private Limited, Singapore,’ for import of 10,000 Metric Tons (MTs.) of Crude Palm Oil of Edible Grade in bulk, as per the terms and conditions stipulated in the contract. The vessel carrying the aforesaid imported item arrived at Mangalore Port on 17.09.2015 around 1600 hours. The respondent herein had filed four bills of entry bearing Nos.2619662, 2619678, 2619680 and 2619708, dated 16.09.2015, seeking clearance of the subject goods for home consumption. According to the respondent herein, as per Notification No.12/2012-Cus. dated 17.03.2012, it was liable to pay duty at 7.5%. That the four bills of entry stipulating duty at 7.5% were assessed on 16.09.2015 and the respondent herein was required to deposit duty of Rs.2,64,95,907/-in terms of bills of entry and TR-6 challans generated by Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) Service Centre, Mangalore.

4. It is not in dispute that the inward entry of the vessel was permitted at 22.45 hours on 17.09.2015. The respondent herein contended that the appellants herein were not right in applying Notification No.46/2015-Cus. dated 17.09.2015 and demanding the enhanced duty at the rate of 12.5% and thereby claiming the enhanced rate in terms of the bills of entry and TR-6 challans generated by EDI Service Centre, Mangalore, on 18.09.2015 i.e. subsequent to the assessment of the bills of entry already made on 16.09.2015. Therefore, the respondent/writ petitioner filed the petition before this Court, seeking a declaration that the reassessment of the bills of entry on 18.09.2015 consequent to issuance of the notification on 17.09.2015 and demanding the higher rate of duty at 12.5% for clearance of the subject goods was illegal.

5. The learned Single Judge by applying the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Param Industries Ltd., [2015 (321) ELT 192 (SC)] (Param Industries Ltd.) held that, under Section 25(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’ for the sake of convenience), there was non-compliance of the stipulation under clause (b) of Section 25(4) of the Act and the Notification No.46/2015-Cus. dated 17.09.2015 was not applicable to the subject goods and appellant/Revenue could not claim the differe