9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (11) TMI 837 - AT - CustomsContinuance of proceedings under Customs Act - Effect of Initiation of CIRP proceedings and Approval of Resolution plan - abatement of the revenue appeal - whether the respondents are entitled to continue with the Appeals and claim relief after Order of NCLT approving the resolution plan has been passed? - HELD THAT - The Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal in the case 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 analysed in detail Rule 22 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 and observed that aforesaid Rule 22 should be applicable the moment the successor interest with sufficient rights is appointed by NCLT to make an application for continuation of the proceeding. Needless to mention, as observed by the Hon ble Supreme Court and High Courts in a catena of cases that the Tribunal is a creature of the statute; it cannot travel beyond the express powers vested under the Statute or Rules framed under the statute while deciding a statutory Appeal filed before it against the Orders of the prescribed statutory authorities mentioned under the statute. The corollary, any order passed by the Tribunal beyond the vested powers under the statute would be non-est in law. There are complete agreement with the view consistently expressed by this Tribunal in a series of cases that the appeal abates once the IRP is appointed and/or Resolution plan approved - all the appeals filed by the Revenue abates as per Rule 22 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982.
Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case are whether the respondents are entitled to continue with the Appeals and claim relief after the Order of NCLT approving the resolution plan has been passed. Summary: The appeals were filed by Revenue against orders passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mangalore. The issue involved in all these appeals being the same, they were taken up together for disposal. Revenue was aggrieved by the orders of the Commissioner, and during the pendency of the appeals, Standard Chartered Bank filed a petition under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, which led to necessary orders being passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). The respondents filed a miscellaneous application before the Tribunal after the approval of the Resolution Plan by NCLT, stating that the appeals had become infructuous and all liability stood extinguished. The main issue in the present appeals was whether the respondents could continue with the appeals and claim relief after the NCLT approved the resolution plan. The relevant provision under the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982, Rule 22, stated that proceedings would abate unless an application for continuance was made by the successor-in-interest within sixty days of the event. The Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal had previously held that the rule should be applicable once the successor interest with sufficient rights is appointed by NCLT to make such an application. The Authorized Representative for Revenue argued that once the Resolution Plan was approved by NCLT, the appeals stood abated as per Rule 22 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982. The Tribunal, in line with previous decisions and case laws, held that the appeals abated once the Resolution Plan was approved by NCLT, rendering the Tribunal functus officio in the matters relating to the appeal. The appeals filed by Revenue abated as per Rule 22 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982, upon the approval of the Resolution Plan by NCLT. The Tribunal emphasized that it could not go beyond its express powers vested under the statute or rules framed under the statute while deciding a statutory appeal. Any order passed by the Tribunal beyond its vested powers under the statute would be non-est in law. Therefore, the Tribunal agreed with the consistent view expressed in previous cases that the appeals abated once the Insolvency Resolution Professional was appointed and/or the Resolution plan was approved. As a result, all the appeals filed by Revenue abated as per Rule 22 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982.
|
