9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 417X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6. The Hon ble NCLT vide Order dated 19.07.2017 admitting the petition appointed the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) in the case. The Resolution Plan has been approved by the Hon ble NCLT vide Order dated 13.04.2018. Consequent to the said Order approving the Resolution Plan, the appellant is now before this Forum. 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 the case laws on the issue including those cited by the Ld. Advocate for the appellant observed that aforesaid Rule 22 should be applicable the moment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s etc during the period from May, 2008 to June, 2009. Alleging that the said goods were used in construction of the factory, show cause Notice was issued for recovery of the CENVAT Credit wrongly availed and on adjudication was confirmed with interest and penalty of equal amount imposed against the appellant. Also, the amount deposited during the course of investigation was appropriated. 3. Appeal No. E/20909/2016 pertains to demand of Excise Duty of Rs. 2,56,98,946/- by issuing Show Cause notice for recovery of the same with interest and penalty, alleging that the goods have been manufactured and cleared clandestinely without payment of duty. The said demand was confirmed with interest and equal amount of penalty imposed. Also, an amoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... And Sons Pvt. Ltd.Vs. Edelwise Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. (2021) 9 SCC 657. 6. Further, it is submitted that since the above demands are not part of the Resolution Plan approved by the adjudicating authority under Section 31 of the IBC, 2016, therefore, it stands extinguished. Also, the ld. Advocate submits that refunds be allowed of the deposits made during the investigation stage and appropriated by the Commissioner in the impugned orders. 7. Per contra, the ld. AR for the Revenue submits that once the Resolution Plan is approved by the Hon ble NCLT, the appeals stand abated as per Rule 22 of CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982 and the Tribunal becomes functus officio. In support, he has relied on the following case-laws:- 1) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 13.04.2018. Consequent to the said Order approving the Resolution Plan, the appellant is now before this Forum. 12. The relevant provision under the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 prescribed at Rule 22 reads as under: RULE 22. Continuance of proceedings after death or adjudication as an insolvent of a party to the appeal or application. Where in any proceedings the appellant or applicant or a respondent dies or is adjudicated as an insolvent or 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 or against the successor-in-interest, the executor, administrator, receiver, liquidator or other legal representative of the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this rule. 4.5 . 4.6 There is no dispute to the binding nature of the resolution plan as approved by the NCLT. It has been settled by the Hon ble Apex Court in the cases referred to by the learned counsel for the applicant. 4.7 ----------------- 4.8 However, from the date of approval of the resolution plan by the NCLT, the appeal filed by the applicant has abated and CESTAT has become functus officio in the matters relating to this appeal. Further it is also settled that the impugned orders in the appeals have got merged in the order of the NCLT approving the Resolution Plan. The decision of the Hon ble Bombay High Court referred to by the learned Authorized representative clearly lays down the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Nagpur 2022 (11) TMI 289 CESTAT MUMBAI. 15. 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. 16. The judgements cited by the Ld. Advocate for the appellant may not be applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In the case of Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd - 2022 (380) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
