2015 (12) TMI 941 - AT - Central Excise

Duty demand - Abatement of proceedings since Respondent company is wound up - Held that - Both the Respondent Companies are being wound up and no application was filed by the liquidator for continuance of the proceedings. Rule 22 of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982 provides continuance of proceedings after death or adjudication as an insolvent of a party to the appeal or application. - On plain reading of Rule 22 of the Rules, 1982, it is clear that when a Respondent in the case of a company, is being wound up, the appeal or application shall abate, unless an application is made for continuance of such proceedings by administrator, receiver, liquidator or other legal representative of the appellant or respondent, as the case may be. In the present case, the Respondent companies are wound up, as revealed from the Letter dated on 12.12.2014. Hence, the appeal filed by the Revenue against the Respondent shall be abated. - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Appeals arising out of a common order; Failure of the respondent to appear; Abatement of appeal due to winding up of respondent companies.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to multiple appeals arising from a common order, where the respondent failed to appear. The Revenue's Authorized Representative presented letters indicating the winding up of the main respondent companies. The Additional Commissioner requested a decision on the appeal's merits. However, Rule 22 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules 1982 stipulates that when a company is being wound up, proceedings shall abate unless continued by the liquidator or legal representative. As no such application was made within the specified period, the appeals filed by the Revenue against the respondent were dismissed as abated.

This case highlights the importance of procedural rules governing appeals in instances of company winding up. The failure of the respondent to participate in the proceedings, coupled with the absence of an application for continuation by a legal representative, led to the abatement of the appeals. The judgment underscores the significance of timely and appropriate legal actions in such circumstances to ensure the continuation of proceedings.

The judgment emphasizes the need for adherence to legal procedures and rules, especially in cases involving company winding up. It showcases the consequences of non-compliance, such as the abatement of appeals. The court's decision to dismiss the appeals as abated underscores the strict application of procedural requirements in legal matters, ensuring fairness and adherence to established rules and regulations.