9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (11) TMI 289 - AT - Central ExciseRefund of pre-deposit - Abatement of appeal - CIRP proceedings - Rule 22 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 - HELD THAT - It is not disputed that the Resolution Plan for the appellant company was approved by Learned NCLT vide its orders dated 3.7.2019 and 22.7.2019. As per Section 31(1) of I B Code, once a resolution plan is duly approved by the Adjudicating Authority, the claims as provided in the resolution plan shall stand frozen and will be binding on the Corporate Debtor and its employees, members, creditors including the Central Government, any State Government or any local authority, guarantors and other stake holders - In the instant case the Resolution Plan was approved by the learned NCLT vide its order dated 3.7.2019 and certain clarifications in some paragraphs of the order were made by the learned NCLT vide its order dated 22.7.2019. In the matter of M/S. ALOK INDUSTRIES LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BELAPUR AND COMMISSIONER OF CEN. EXCISE, MUMBAI CENTRAL 2022 (10) TMI 801 - CESTAT MUMBAI of this Tribunal in similar circumstances in which it has been held that the appeal abates in terms of Rule 22 ibid with effect from the date of approval of resolution plan by learned NCLT. As the appeal has already been abated therefore the appellant cannot claim any refund before this Tribunal of any pre-deposit made by them before the Commissioner (Appeals), as the power which Hon ble Supreme Court/High Courts can exercise are not available with this Tribunal - Application disposed off.
Issues:
Challenge to Order-in-Appeal, Abatement of Appeal due to Resolution Plan Approval, Jurisdiction of Tribunal, Refund Claim, Applicability of Rule 22 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules. Analysis: 1. Challenge to Order-in-Appeal: The appellant challenged the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Nagpur. The appellant argued that the Resolution Plan for the company was approved by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), which clarified certain paragraphs of the order. The Revenue representative contended that the appeal became infructuous based on a previous Tribunal order in the appellant's case. 2. Abatement of Appeal due to Resolution Plan Approval: The Tribunal noted that the Resolution Plan for the appellant company was duly approved by the NCLT, and the claims provided in the plan were binding on all stakeholders. The Tribunal referred to specific paragraphs of the NCLT order clarifying the extinguishment of claims and the settlement of admitted claims. The Tribunal emphasized that the terms of the NCLT order were binding and could not be altered. 3. Jurisdiction of Tribunal: The Tribunal considered relevant case laws and previous orders in the appellant's case while disposing of the appeal. It cited the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the abatement of the appeal in accordance with Rule 22 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982, due to the acceptance of the Resolution Plan by the NCLT. 4. Refund Claim: The appellant sought a refund of the pre-deposit amount. However, the Tribunal ruled that since the appeal had been abated, the appellant could not claim a refund before the Tribunal. The Tribunal clarified that the power to grant such refunds lay with higher forums and directed the appellant to seek redressal before the appropriate authority. 5. Applicability of Rule 22 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules: The Tribunal considered the applicability of Rule 22 in cases where the appeal becomes infructuous due to the acceptance of a Resolution Plan by the NCLT. Despite the appellant's reliance on a different Tribunal decision, the Tribunal held that the previous order in the appellant's case had a binding effect and, therefore, the appeal had become infructuous and abated under Rule 22. In conclusion, the Tribunal pronounced the appeal as abated and directed the appellant to seek redressal for any refund before the appropriate forum. The judgment highlighted the binding nature of the NCLT's approval of the Resolution Plan and the consequent abatement of the appeal in accordance with Rule 22 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982.
|
