2023 Supreme(Del) 9019
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
MS SUNFLAME TRADING PVTLTD & ORS. – Appellant
Versus
COMMISSIONER CENTRAL EXCISE – Respondent
Advocates:
SHADMAN AHMED SIDDIQUI
ORDER
% 11.01.2023
1.Learned counsel for the Respondent states that the Department had frozen 37 bank accounts of the three Petitioner Companies. He states that the status of the said bank accounts as on date are as follows:
(i)24 bank accounts have been defreezed by the concerned banks, as on date, and the Petitioners can operate their respective accounts.
(ii)5 bank accounts could not be defreezed as the status of the bank account as per the records of the bank is marked as dormant. He states, however, the Respondent herein has clarified to the concerned banks that Respondent does not have any lien on the bank account. He, therefore, states that the that the revival and operation of the said accounts is now between the concerned banker and the Petitioners.
(iii)with respect to 4 bank accounts, he states that the Respondent has clarified to the concerned banks that Respondent has no lien on the said bank accounts. However, the bankers have informed the Respondent that the said bank accounts cannot be defreezed because of the pending KYC compliance. He states that the revival and operation of these 4 bank accounts is now between the concerned banker and the Petitioners.
Click Here to Read the rest of this document