9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 20X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s out that the similar matter in respect of same appellant is covered in a recent decision of the Kolkata Bench of this Tribunal, whereby, they have decided that the appeals pending before the Bench at Kolkata Tribunal abates, in view of the factual matrix and the fact that the appellants M/s Tata Steel Ltd., have taken over the company from Bhushan Steel Ltd, after NCLT has approved the Resolution Plan passed Order for abating the appeals. They have also considered the Hon ble Apex Court s decision in the case of Ghanshyam Mishra and Sons Pvt Ltd Vs Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd [2021 (4) TMI 613 SC], as also SOP prescribed by CBIC dt.23.05.2022. It was also pointed out that though the learned Advocate has referred to matters ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n that any order passed by the Tribunal beyond the vested power would ipso facto be non-est in law. The Order passed by the Tribunal at Para 37 is reproduced for ease of reference:- 37. In all the above cases, the Tribunal has consistently held that the appeal abated (once the IRP is appointed and Resolution Plan approved) as per Rule 22 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 and that is the only relief / Order that could be passed as prescribed under the Rules. Thus, any order passed by the Tribunal beyond the vested powers would ipso facto be non-est in law. 5. 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 (Procedu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
