NCLT Kochi Refuses to Condon 787-Day Delay In Filing Form C claim ; Says Pending Proceedings Can’t Justify Late Claims by Customs Department
Pranav B Prem
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Kochi has dismissed an appeal filed by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs seeking condonation of a 787-day delay in filing its claim in the liquidation of Rubberwood India Pvt. Ltd., holding that the pendency of proceedings before another forum cannot justify missing the strict timelines prescribed under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).
A Bench comprising Judicial Member Vinay Goel and Technical Member Madhu Sinha noted that the Customs Department sought to rely on an appeal pending before the CESTAT as justification for its failure to submit the claim on time. The Tribunal rejected the explanation, observing that accepting such a plea “would defeat the very purpose of a time-bound liquidation process” and open the door to stale claims, including from government authorities.
Background of the Case
Rubberwood India Pvt. Ltd. was admitted into CIRP on 17 May 2022, and liquidation was ordered on 15 December 2022. A public announcement was issued on 20 December 2022, inviting claims until 20 January 2023. However, the Customs Department filed its Form C claim only on 17 March 2025, admitting a delay of 787 days. The claim comprised more than ₹14 lakh in duty and over ₹50 lakh as interest calculated up to 17 May 2022. Customs argued that since an appeal filed by the suspended management before CESTAT remained pending until it was closed as abated on 26 September 2024, it was unable to submit its claim earlier. It contended that the delay was neither deliberate nor intentional and that rejecting the claim would cause financial loss to the public exchequer.
Findings of the Tribunal
The Tribunal held that mere pendency of proceedings before CESTAT without any stay or restraint order could not be treated as a valid or sufficient reason for delaying the filing of a claim. It stressed that the Customs Department had long been aware of the duty demand—originating from an order dated 25 June 2009—yet failed to act with necessary diligence. It also noted that even after the appeal abated on 26 September 2024, the department waited nearly six more months before first communicating with the Liquidator on 12 March 2025, and only filed Form C on 17 March 2025. The Tribunal termed this prolonged inaction “unexplained” and “not bona fide.”
The NCLT further emphasised that the IBC’s timelines are mandatory, not directory, and apply equally to government departments. It cited rulings of the Supreme Court, High Courts, and NCLAT reiterating that the insolvency framework is intended to be strictly time-bound, leaving little room for discretionary condonation of delay.
Holding that allowing such a delayed claim would “seriously prejudice the orderly distribution of assets” and undermine the finality of the liquidation process, the Tribunal refused to condone the delay. It concluded that the Customs Department had failed to show any “sufficient cause” for missing the deadline and therefore dismissed the appeal in full.
Appearance
For the Appellant: Advocate Suvin R Menon
For the Respondent: Advocate Akhil Suresh
Cause Title: Assistant Commissioner of Customs v. Renahan Vamakesan and Anr.
Case No: Company Appeal (IBC)/6/KOB/2025 IN IA (IBC)/408/KOB/2022 IN CP (IBC)/26/KOB/2022
Coram: Judicial Member Vinay Goel, Technical Member Madhu Sinha
