"(1) CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL REGIONAL BENCH AT HYDERABAD Regional Bench – Court No. – I Customs Appeal No. 257 of 2011 (Arising out of OIA No.59/2010-VCH dt.26.11.2010 passed by Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), Visakhapatnam) Commissioner of Central Tax Visakhapatnam – I Port Area, Visakhapatnam, AP – 530 035 ......Appellant VERSUS Tata Steel Limited 23, Site-IV, Sahibabad Industrial Area, Ghaziabad, UP – 201 010 ……Respondent with Customs Appeal No. 441 of 2011 with C/CROSS/116/2011 (Arising out of OIA No.59/2010-VCH dt.26.11.2010 passed by Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), Visakhapatnam) Tata Steel Limited F-Block, 1st Floor, International Trade Tower, Nehru Place, New Delhi – 110 019 ......Appellant VERSUS Commissioner of Central Tax Visakhapatnam – I Port Area, Visakhapatnam, AP – 530 035 ……Respondent with Customs Appeal No. 3185 of 2011 (Arising out of OIA No.36 & 37/2011-VCH dt.29.09.2011 passed by Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), Visakhapatnam) Tata Steel Limited 23, Site-IV, Sahibabad Industrial Area, Ghaziabad, UP – 201 010 ......Appellant VERSUS Commissioner of Central Tax Visakhapatnam – I Port Area, Visakhapatnam, AP – 530 035 ……Respondent with Customs Appeal No. 3186 of 2011 (Arising out of OIA No.38/2011-VCH dt.29.09.2011 passed by Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), Visakhapatnam) Tata Steel Limited 23, Site-IV, Sahibabad Industrial Area, Ghaziabad, UP – 201 010 ......Appellant VERSUS Commissioner of Central Tax Visakhapatnam – I Port Area, Visakhapatnam, AP – 530 035 ……Respondent (2) with Customs Appeal No. 1796 of 2012 (Arising out of OIA No.37/2011-VCH dt.29.09.2011 passed by Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), Visakhapatnam) Tata Steel Limited 23, Site-IV, Sahibabad Industrial Area, Ghaziabad, UP – 201 010 ......Appellant VERSUS Commissioner of Central Tax Visakhapatnam – I Port Area, Visakhapatnam, AP – 530 035 ……Respondent and Customs Appeal No. 2996 of 2012 (Arising out of OIA No.52/2012-VCH dt.26.07.2012 passed by Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), Visakhapatnam) Bhushan Steel Limited 5, Integrated Steel Plant, Narendrapur, Via Meramandali, Dhenkanal Dist.– 799 121 ......Appellant VERSUS Commissioner of Central Tax Visakhapatnam - CUS Port Area, Visakhapatnam, AP – 530 035 ……Respondent Appearance None for the Assessee. Shri Sandeep Payal, AR for the Revenue. Coram: HON'BLE MR. A.K. JYOTISHI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) HON'BLE MR. ANGAD PRASAD, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) FINAL ORDER No. A/30429-30434/2024 Date of Hearing: 17.12.2024 Date of Decision: 17.12.2024 [Order per: A.K. JYOTISHI] Learned Advocate for the appellant, vide e-mail dt.16.12.2024, has requested for adjournment on the grounds that the Counsel, who was supposed to appear in respect of Appeals listed at Sl. No.4 to 12 in the cause list is not in a position to appear and therefore, they are seeking adjournment to another date, preferably after 10.02.2025. 2. On the other hand, learned AR for Revenue points out that the similar matter in respect of same appellant is covered in a recent decision of the Kolkata Bench of this Tribunal, whereby, they have decided that the appeals (3) pending before the Bench at Kolkata Tribunal abates, in view of the factual matrix and the fact that the appellants – M/s Tata Steel Ltd., have taken over the company from Bhushan Steel Ltd, after NCLT has approved the Resolution Plan passed Order for abating the appeals. They have also considered the Hon’ble Apex Court’s decision in the case of Ghanshyam Mishra and Sons Pvt Ltd Vs Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd [2021 (4) TMI 613 – SC], as also SOP prescribed by CBIC dt.23.05.2022. It was also pointed out that though the learned Advocate has referred to matters posted at Sl.No.4 to 12 of the cause list, the three appeals out of the bunch of appeals have already been withdrawn by the Department on account of monetary limit. Therefore, what he is referring to is present appeals, which are pending before this Bench from Sl.No.4 to 9 today. 3. Since the issues involved are clear and covered by the order in their own appeal by Kolkata Bench, therefore, instead of adjourning the matter, we take up these appeals for final disposal on merits itself without adjourning the matter. 4. We have gone through the Order of the Coordinate Bench vide Final Order No. 75665-75669/2024 dt.16.04.2024 and find that the Bench had recorded that the appellant company underwent CIRP in terms of IBC, which culminated into approval of Resolution Plan of Bhushan Steel Ltd by the Adjudicating Authority at NCLT, Principal Bench at New Delhi. They have also considered the relevant clauses of the Resolution Plan and the fact that both sides viz., the appellant as well as the Revenue have no qualms over the impugned appeals being abated and having been rendered infructuous, in view of the above said developments. The Order of the Coordinate Bench in respect of the same appellant for other appeals pending before the said bench has held that in the facts of the case, all those appeals abate. In addition, they have also gone through plethora of case laws, etc., keeping in view some of the other arguments concerning refund of pre-deposits, etc., and came to the conclusion that any order passed by the Tribunal beyond the vested power would ipso facto be non-est in law. The Order passed by the Tribunal at Para 37 is reproduced for ease of reference:- “37. In all the above cases, the Tribunal has consistently held that the appeal abated (once the IRP is appointed and Resolution Plan approved) as per Rule 22 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 and that is the only relief / Order that could be passed as prescribed under the Rules. (4) Thus, any order passed by the Tribunal beyond the vested powers would ipso facto be non-est in law.” 5. Therefore, in view of the settled legal position, as clearly brought out in the Order of the Coordinate Bench dt.16.04.2024 and in view of Rule 22 and Rule 41 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rule, 1982, we are of the view that 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. 6. Therefore, these appeals abate with effect from the date of approval of Resolution Plan by the NCLT vide its Order dt.15.05.2018 and are disposed of accordingly. (Dictated and pronounced in the Open Court) (A.K. JYOTISHI) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) (ANGAD PRASAD) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Veda "