2025 (1) TMI 20 - AT - Customs

Abatement of appeals due to approval of Resolution Plan under IBC - request for adjournment due to the absence of counsel - HELD THAT - On going through the Order of the Coordinate Bench M/S. TATA STEEL LIMITED ( FORMERLY M/S. TATA STEEL BSL LTD) VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CUSTOMS AND SERVICE TAX, BHUBANESWAR 2024 (4) TMI 1211 - CESTAT KOLKATA , it is found that the Bench had recorded that the appellant company underwent CIRP in terms of IBC, which culminated into approval of Resolution Plan of Bhushan Steel Ltd by the Adjudicating Authority at NCLT, Principal Bench at New Delhi. They have also considered the relevant clauses of the Resolution Plan and the fact that both sides viz., the appellant as well as the Revenue have no qualms over the impugned appeals being abated and having been rendered infructuous, in view of the above said developments. The Order of the Coordinate Bench in respect of the same appellant for other appeals pending before the said bench has held that in the facts of the case, all those appeals abate. In addition, they have also gone through plethora of case laws, etc., keeping in view some of the other arguments concerning refund of pre-deposits, etc., and came to the conclusion that any order passed by the Tribunal beyond the vested power would ipso facto be non-est in law. Therefore, in view of the settled legal position, as clearly brought out in the Order of the Coordinate Bench dt.16.04.2024 and in view of Rule 22 and Rule 41 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rule, 1982, these appeals would abate and after abatement of these appeals, the Tribunal would be rendered functus officio in the matters relating to these appeals and thus would not be able to decide any other issues connected with the said appeals. These appeals abate with effect from the date of approval of Resolution Plan by the NCLT vide its Order dt.15.05.2018 and are disposed of accordingly.

Summary

Issues:
Abatement of appeals due to approval of Resolution Plan under IBC

Analysis:
The appellant requested an adjournment due to the absence of their counsel for certain appeals listed. The Revenue pointed out that similar matters involving the same appellant were decided by the Kolkata Bench, where it was held that the appeals pending before the Bench abate due to the takeover of the company by M/s Tata Steel Ltd. from Bhushan Steel Ltd. post the approval of Resolution Plan by NCLT. The Revenue cited the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in a related case and the SOP prescribed by CBIC. It was highlighted that some appeals had already been withdrawn by the Department due to monetary limits. The Tribunal decided to proceed with the appeals for final disposal without adjournment, considering that the issues were clear and covered by the order of the Kolkata Bench.

The Tribunal reviewed the Order of the Coordinate Bench and noted that the appellant company underwent CIRP under IBC, leading to the approval of the Resolution Plan by the Adjudicating Authority at NCLT. Both the appellant and the Revenue had no objections to the appeals being abated and rendered infructuous due to these developments. The Coordinate Bench had held that all appeals involving the same appellant abate in similar circumstances. The Tribunal referred to various case laws and concluded that any order passed beyond the vested powers would be non-est in law. Citing Rule 22 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982, the Tribunal held that the appeals would abate in accordance with the settled legal position and Rule 41 of the said Rules. Consequently, the appeals were deemed abated from the date of approval of the Resolution Plan by NCLT and were disposed of accordingly.