TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appeals Abated for Failure to File Continuation Application</h1> <h3>M/s. Cox & Kings Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai-I (Vice-Versa)</h3> The appeals were held to abate as per Rule 22 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules due to the failure to file an application for continuation of proceedings by ... Continuation of proceedings after death or adjudication as an insolvent of a party to the appeal or application - HELD THAT:- Till date there are no application being filed in the matter for continuation of the proceedings by the successor-ininterest. Sufficient time has been allowed for the successor-in-interest to file an application for continuation of proceedings in this case. In absence of any such application by the operation of Rule 22 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, these appeals abate. Issues: Abatement of proceedings due to liquidation of the appellant company and failure to file an application for continuation of proceedings by the successor-in-interest.In the present case, the appellant company was under liquidation, leading to an adjournment to allow the Official Liquidator/Resolution Professional to appear. Previously, an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code had been filed, appointing an Interim Resolution Professional. Despite this, there was no application for continuation of proceedings by the successor-in-interest after the replacement of the Resolution Professional. Rule 22 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 was cited, emphasizing the abatement of proceedings in cases of death, insolvency, or winding up of a party unless an application for continuation is made within sixty days. As no such application was filed within the specified time, the appeals were held to abate as per the Rule.The Tribunal noted the ample time provided for the successor-in-interest to take necessary action but observed the absence of any such application, leading to the abatement of the appeals. The decision was made in accordance with Rule 22 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, emphasizing the importance of timely application for continuation of proceedings in cases involving death, insolvency, or winding up of a party. As a result, the appeals were deemed to have abated due to the failure to comply with the procedural requirements outlined in the Rule.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
