https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346772 A writ petition challenging CESTAT's stay and pre-deposit directions became infructuous after the Tribunal held that the company's appeals, stay applications and miscellaneous applications had abated on winding up, as no application for continuance was filed by the official liquidator under Rule 22 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules. The unchallenged abatement order attained finality, and the High Court therefore treated the proceedings as no longer subsisting. In that position, no further relief could be granted against the earlier direction to deposit duty under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, because the underlying appeals themselves had ceased to exist. en-us Tue, 01 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 23 Aug 2017 07:32:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346772 A writ petition challenging CESTAT's stay and pre-deposit directions became infructuous after the Tribunal held that the company's appeals, stay applications and miscellaneous applications had abated on winding up, as no application for continuance was filed by the official liquidator under Rule 22 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules. The unchallenged abatement order attained finality, and the High Court therefore treated the proceedings as no longer subsisting. In that position, no further relief could be granted against the earlier direction to deposit duty under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, because the underlying appeals themselves had ceased to exist. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 01 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346772