Liquidation and failure to seek continuance under tribunal procedure rules caused the appeal to abate.

A company appeal does not survive liquidation where no timely application for continuance is made by the official liquidator or successor-in-interest under Rule 22 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982. In the absence of such an application, the proceedings abate, and the appeal cannot be continued after the company has been ordered to be liquidated. The Tribunal applied this procedural consequence to hold that the miscellaneous application was disposed of and the appeal stood abated for want of continuation.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal survives after the appellant company was ordered to be liquidated, and whether the absence of an application for continuance by the liquidator under the Tribunal procedure rules results in abatement.

Analysis: The appellant company was stated to have been ordered to be liquidated. No application for continuance of the proceedings by the official liquidator or other successor-in-interest was made within the framework of Rule 22 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982. In such circumstances, the appeal does not survive. The Tribunal also relied on the principle that, upon liquidation and in the absence of a proper application for continuance, the proceedings abate.

Conclusion: The appeal abated and could not be continued.

Final Conclusion: The miscellaneous application was disposed of and the appeal stood abated for want of continuation after liquidation.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a company in appeal is liquidated and no timely application for continuance is made by the liquidator or successor-in-interest under the applicable Tribunal procedure rules, the appeal abates.

---