TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (7) TMI 1122
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Orders-in-Original No.16/STVII/ RS/2015-16 dated 19.08.2015 and No.20-21/ST-VII/RS/2015-16 dated 28.08.2015 (herein referred to as 'impugned orders') passed by the Commissioner of Service Tax-VII, Mumbai. 2.1. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the activity of setting up telecommunication towers and leasing them to Telecom Service providers, and pay service tax under the category of Business Support Services in respect of such activity. The appellants have availed CENVAT credit on inputs/capital goods and input services to erect telecom towers which the department had claimed as immovable property and that it is neither excisable goods nor leviable to service tax. Accordingly the Department interpr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....020. The learned advocate for the appellant submits that the CIRP was completed on 28.12.2022 i.e., the effective date when the entire payment to the creditors in terms of the Resolution Plan was made by the resolution applicant and thereby taking over the management and business of the appellant. He further submitted that in so far as the demand arising from the impugned order dated 28.08.2015 is concerned, department have filed the claim before the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) as operational creditor. However, no such claim was filed in respect of demand arising from the impugned order dated 19.08.2015 before the IRP. In terms of the NCLT approved Resolution Plan, all claims or demands made by or liabilities owed or payable to or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me Court . 4. We find that the matter is no more res integra, as the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ghanashyam Mishra and Sons Private Limited Vs. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 8129 of 2019) reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 313 vide judgement dated 13.04.2021. The relevant portions of the said judgment are extracted below: " 2. The short but important questions, that arise for consideration in this batch of matters, are as under: (i) As to whether any creditor including the Central Government, State Government or any local authority is bound by the Resolution Plan once it is approved by an adjudicating authority under sub-section ( 1) of Section 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code,2016....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ently all the dues including the statutory dues owed to the Central Government, any State Government or any local authority, if not part of the resolution plan, shall stand extinguished and no proceedings in respect of such dues for the period prior to the date on which the Adjudicating Authority grants its approval under Section 31 could be continued." 5. We also find that CBIC has vide Instruction No.1083/04/2022-CX9 dated 23.05.2022 has laid down the guidelines in the form of Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for handling the NCLT cases by the department, which reiterates the legal position that once the plan is approved by NCLT, no demands can be raised on the Resolution Applicant. The relevant paragraph of said instructions is extra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ims, despite the settled position that no claims can be raised once the plan is approved and no demands can be raised on the Resolution Applicant who has taken over the company through such a resolution plan." 6. Appellants have also claimed that the refund of pre-deposit paid by them at the time of filing the captioned appeals should be paid back to them. In this regard, we find that the matter has already been decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ruchi Soya Industries Limited Vs. Union of India 2022 (380) ELT 8 (SC). The relevant paras of the judgement is extracted as follows: "14. Admittedly, the claim in respect of the demand which is the subject matter of the present proceedings was not lodged by the respondent No. 2....