2023 (11) TMI 565 - AT - Service Tax

Abatement of appeal - non-service of SCN - HELD THAT - It is found from the record that the official liquidator Sh. Sumit Binani was appointed by the NCLT vide order dated 11.01.2018. However, in spite of notice by the Registry, no response has been received. Thus, there are force in the contention of the ld. AR for the Revenue. The Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal in Alok Industries Ltd 2022 (10) TMI 801 - CESTAT MUMBAI in similar circumstances held that the appeal abates. This principle has been followed subsequently by the other benches of this Tribunal. In the result, the appeal abates as per Rule 22 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982.

Summary

Issues Involved: The abatement of appeal u/s Rule 22 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 due to failure of successor-in-interest to continue proceedings after appointment of official liquidator.

Abatement of Appeal u/s Rule 22 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982:
The appellant failed to appear despite multiple notices, and it was noted that the appellant was before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) with directions to issue notice to the official liquidator. The official liquidator was appointed on 11.01.2018, but no response was received despite notices. The ld. AR for the Revenue argued that since the successor-in-interest did not approach the Tribunal to continue the proceedings, the appeal abates as per Rule 22. The Tribunal referred to the judgment in the case of Alok Industries Ltd vs. CCE, Belapur/Mumbai Central and held that the appeal abates in such circumstances. The Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal has consistently followed this principle, leading to the abatement of the appeal in this case as well.

Rule 22 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982:
Rule 22 states that if a party dies, is adjudicated as insolvent, or a company is being wound up, the appeal or application shall abate unless an application is made by the successor-in-interest or other legal representative within sixty days of the event. The Tribunal may allow an application to be presented after the specified period if there is sufficient cause. In this case, despite the appointment of the official liquidator, no response was received, leading to the abatement of the appeal as per Rule 22.

Conclusion:
The appeal abates as the successor-in-interest did not approach the Tribunal to continue the proceedings after the appointment of the official liquidator, in accordance with Rule 22 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982. The failure to respond to notices and lack of representation led to the abatement of the appeal, following the precedent set by previous judgments of the Tribunal.