2017 (8) TMI 830 - HC - Central Excise

Dismissal of Writ Petition Over Duty Deposit in Company Winding Up

The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the Tribunal's order to deposit 50% duty amount, as the company was being wound up and no ... Appeal/application filed by the company which is being wound up - Held that: - reliance placed in the case of M/s DSM. Sugar (now M/s Kashipur Sugar Mills Ltd.) and others Versus CCE, Meerut- II [2014 (3) TMI 242 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], where it was held that when an appeal or an application is filed by a company and same 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 appellant or applicant or respondent, as the case may be - The said order of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi has not been challenged and, therefore, has attained finality - petition dismissed - decided against petitioner. Issues:1. Challenge to the order of the Tribunal dated 17.11.2008 requiring deposit of 50% duty amount.2. Direction to hear appeal pending before the Tribunal without pre-deposit.3. Direction to not recover any confirmed amount towards duty, interest, and penalty.Analysis:1. The petitioner sought a writ to quash the Tribunal's order dated 17.11.2008, directing deposit of 50% of duty amount within eight weeks. However, the High Court found the writ petition infructuous after reviewing the documents and hearing both counsels. The Court noted that the issue had already been addressed in a judgment by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, on 04.10.2013. The Tribunal's order stated that if a company is being wound up, the appeal or application shall abate unless a continuation application is filed by the successor in interest or legal representative. As the appellant company was being wound up with an official liquidator appointed, and no application for continuation was received, all appeals by the company were treated as abated as per Rule 22 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules.2. The Tribunal's order regarding the abatement of appeals due to the company being wound up was not challenged and has attained finality. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the writ petition as infructuous since the issue had already been conclusively addressed by the Tribunal's judgment. Therefore, the petitioner's request to quash the Tribunal's order requiring the deposit of 50% duty amount was no longer relevant.3. The High Court's decision was based on the principle that when legal proceedings are affected by circumstances such as a company being wound up, the rules governing continuation or abatement of appeals must be followed to ensure procedural fairness and legal clarity. In this case, the Tribunal's order regarding the abatement of appeals due to the company's winding up was upheld, emphasizing the importance of compliance with procedural rules in legal matters to maintain the integrity of the judicial process and protect the rights of all parties involved.