Winding-up abatement and pre-deposit waiver in tax appeals: continuation by successor required, and penalty relief refused absent hardship.

A company appeal abates on winding up under Rule 22 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules unless continuance is sought by the liquidator or other authorised successor; in the absence of such an , the appeal cannot survive. Relief from recovery and pre-deposit for directors' penalties may be refused where the penalties are modest and no financial hardship or other sufficient ground for waiver is shown. The company's appeal was therefore treated as abated, and the directors were required to deposit the penalties within the time fixed for their appeals to proceed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the company's appeal abated on account of winding up under the CESTAT Procedure Rules. (ii) Whether stay of recovery and waiver of pre-deposit could be granted in respect of the penalties imposed on the Directors.

Issue (i): Whether the company's appeal abated on account of winding up under the CESTAT Procedure Rules.

Analysis: Rule 22 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982 provides that where a company is being wound up, the appeal abates unless continuance is sought by the successor-in-interest or liquidator. In view of the winding-up order and absence of any application for continuance, the company's appeal could not survive before the Tribunal.

Conclusion: The company's appeal abated and was disposed of accordingly.

Issue (ii): Whether stay of recovery and waiver of pre-deposit could be granted in respect of the penalties imposed on the Directors.

Analysis: The penalties imposed on each Director were nominal, no financial hardship was shown, and the Tribunal found the amounts required to be deposited. The request for stay and waiver of pre-deposit was therefore not accepted.

Conclusion: The stay applications of the Directors were rejected and they were directed to deposit the penalties within the time fixed.

Final Conclusion: The company's appeal ceased on abatement, while the Directors were required to comply with the pre-deposit direction for their penalty appeals to proceed.

Ratio Decidendi: A company appeal abates on winding up under Rule 22 unless continuation is sought by the liquidator or other authorised successor, and pre-deposit relief may be refused where no sufficient ground for waiver is shown.

---