Winding-up abatement under CESTAT procedure rule ends appeal when no continuation application is filed.

Where a company appellant is being wound up, Rule 22 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 provides that the appeal abates unless a continuation application is made by the liquidator or other competent representative. The text notes that the company's winding-up status was supported by the BIFR recommendation, the AAIFR dismissal, and the High Court's order, and no such application for continuance was filed. The proceedings therefore ended by abatement under the procedural rule, and there was no adjudication on the merits of the excise demand or penalty.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal abated because the appellant-company was being wound up and no application for continuance of the proceedings was made under the applicable procedural rule.

Analysis: The appellant-company's winding-up status was supported by the BIFR order recommending winding up under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, the dismissal of the appeal before the AAIFR, and the High Court's order indicating that winding up was the apparent consequence of the statutory scheme. Rule 22 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 provides that where a company is being wound up, the appeal abates unless a continuation application is made by the liquidator or other competent representative. No such application had been filed.

Conclusion: The appeal had abated under Rule 22 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982.

Final Conclusion: The proceedings came to an end on the ground of abatement, leaving no adjudication on the merits of the excise demand and penalty.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a company appellant is being wound up and no application is made for continuance of the appeal by the person entitled to represent it, the appeal abates by operation of the procedural rule.

---