Appeals Abated as NCLT Approves Resolution Plan Under IBC; Tata Steel Takes Over Bhushan Steel Ltd.

The Tribunal held that the appeals involving the appellant company abate due to the approval of a Resolution Plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) by the NCLT, which resulted in the takeover of the company by M/s Tata Steel Ltd. from Bhushan Steel Ltd. The Tribunal, referencing the Kolkata Bench's decision and Rule 22 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982, concluded that the appeals were rendered infructuous and abated from the date of the Resolution Plan's approval. Consequently, all pending appeals were disposed of as abated.

---

---

Issues:
Abatement of appeals due to approval of Resolution Plan under IBC

Analysis:
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 It was highlighted that some appeals had already been withdrawn by the Department due to monetary limits.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.

---