https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=429865 The Tribunal pronounced the appeal as abated due to the approval of the Resolution Plan by the NCLT, holding that the terms of the NCLT order were binding and could not be altered. The appellant's request for a refund of the pre-deposit amount was denied, with the Tribunal directing them to seek redressal before the appropriate authority. The Tribunal emphasized the applicability of Rule 22 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules in cases where appeals become infructuous, highlighting the binding effect of previous orders and the consequential abatement of the appeal. en-us Thu, 03 Nov 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 06 Nov 2022 18:41:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=429865 The Tribunal pronounced the appeal as abated due to the approval of the Resolution Plan by the NCLT, holding that the terms of the NCLT order were binding and could not be altered. The appellant's request for a refund of the pre-deposit amount was denied, with the Tribunal directing them to seek redressal before the appropriate authority. The Tribunal emphasized the applicability of Rule 22 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules in cases where appeals become infructuous, highlighting the binding effect of previous orders and the consequential abatement of the appeal. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 03 Nov 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=429865