ARUN PIPES LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One of the present applications filed by the appellant -company seeks waiver of pre -deposit and stay of recovery under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The other application is for early posting of the appeal for hearing. We have examined the records. It appears from the record that the appellant -company was liquidated as per order dated 28 -9 -2001 of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in Company Petition No. 339 of 1997. It further appears that the notice of this appeal was given by the appellants to the Official Liquidator appointed by the High Court, on several occasions in the past. One Shri D. Mani, claiming to be 'Estate Assistant' in the office of the Official Liquidator, shows some records to us. It appears from these records that the first intimation of the present appeal was given to the Official Liquidator by the ex -Managing Director of the company on 9 -7 -2002. Subsequently, a reminder was given on 4 -11 -2003. The Official Liquidator's acknowledgement of receipt of this reminder on 4 -11 -2003 is also found amongst our records. The records shown to us today, further, indicate that urgent notice of hearing in the present appeal was again given to the Official Liquidators on 10 -3 -2004. The Official Liquidator is obviously aware of today's posting of the case. We learn from Shri D. Mani, that in the office of the Official Liquidator, there is one Deputy Official Liquidator and 2 Assistant Official Liquidators working under him. However, no officer, duly authorised, has been deputed to attend to this case. Shri D. Mani does not carry any authorisation from the Official Liquidator. Therefore, we are unable to take note of his submissions.

(2.) As already noted, the company was liquidated as early as in 2001. The appeal of such a company should abate in terms of Rule 22 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982. The proviso to this rule enables the Official Liquidator to continue this appeal by filing an application for the purpose within the period stipulated in the proviso. That period expired long ago. No such application is found on record, either. In the circumstances, it is recorded that the appeal has abated. Consequently the aforesaid applications stand dismissed.