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 as NCLT Approves Resolution Plan Under IBC; Tata Steel Takes Over Bhushan Steel Ltd.</h1> <h3>Commissioner of Central Tax Visakhapatnam – I Versus Tata Steel Limited (Vice-Versa) and Bhushan Steel Limited Versus Commissioner of Central Tax Visakhapatnam - CUS</h3> Commissioner of Central Tax Visakhapatnam – I Versus Tata Steel Limited (Vice-Versa) and Bhushan Steel Limited Versus Commissioner of Central Tax ... Issues:Abatement of appeals due to approval of Resolution Plan under IBCAnalysis:The appellant requested an adjournment due to the absence of their counsel for certain appeals listed. The Revenue pointed out that similar matters involving the same appellant were decided by the Kolkata Bench, where it was held that the appeals pending before the Bench abate due to the takeover of the company by M/s Tata Steel Ltd. from Bhushan Steel Ltd. post the approval of Resolution Plan by NCLT. The Revenue cited the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in a related case and the SOP prescribed by CBIC. It was highlighted that some appeals had already been withdrawn by the Department due to monetary limits. The Tribunal decided to proceed with the appeals for final disposal without adjournment, considering that the issues were clear and covered by the order of the Kolkata Bench.The Tribunal reviewed the Order of the Coordinate Bench and noted that the appellant company underwent CIRP under IBC, leading to the approval of the Resolution Plan by the Adjudicating Authority at NCLT. Both the appellant and the Revenue had no objections to the appeals being abated and rendered infructuous due to these developments. The Coordinate Bench had held that all appeals involving the same appellant abate in similar circumstances. The Tribunal referred to various case laws and concluded that any order passed beyond the vested powers would be non-est in law. Citing Rule 22 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982, the Tribunal held that the appeals would abate in accordance with the settled legal position and Rule 41 of the said Rules. Consequently, the appeals were deemed abated from the date of approval of the Resolution Plan by NCLT and were disposed of accordingly.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
