Commissioner of Central Tax Visakhapatnam – I Vs Tata Steel Limited (CESTAT Hyderabad)
Conclusion: Any orders passed beyond Tribunal’s vested powers would be non-est in law (invalid) and that these appeals had become infructuous due to the resolution plan’s approval, with no further issues for adjudication. Commissioner’s appeals were deemed abated with effect from May 15, 2018, and Tribunal dismissed the matter accordingly.
Held: Assessee-company acquired Bhushan Steel Limited through a resolution plan approved by the NCLT on May 15, 2018, as part of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). The appeals arose from multiple orders issued by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise, and Service Tax (Appeals). The Kolkata Bench of Tribunal had earlier ruled that similar appeals abate under Rule 22 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982, following the approval of a resolution plan. Revenue department argued that the same principle also covered the appeals under consideration in the Hyderabad Bench and should abate accordingly. Assessee sought an adjournment due to the unavailability of the designated lawyer but Tribunal declined the request citing the legal clarity established in earlier decisions by the Kolkata Bench and the Supreme Court, including Ghanshyam Mishra and Sons Pvt. Ltd. vs. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. The Kolkata Bench Tribunal referred to Rule 41 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, which explained that the CESTAT became functus officio (lacking authority) once appeals abate. Revenue further argued that three of the appeals listed had already been withdrawn due to monetary limits and that the remaining appeals were no longer substantial. It was held that as clearly brought out in the Order of the Coordinate Bench vide Final Order No. 75665-75669/2024 dt.16.04.2024 and in view of Rule 22 and Rule 41 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rule, 1982, these appeals would abate and after abatement of these appeals, the Tribunal would be rendered functus officio in the matters relating to these appeals and thus would not be able to decide any other issues connected with the said appeals.
