CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI REGIONAL BENCH – COURT NO. I Service Tax Appeal No. 41263 of 2017 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. CMB-CEX-000-APP-059-17, dated 02.03.2017 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax (Appeals -I), 6/7, A.T.D. Street, Race Course Road, Coimbatore)

Aircel Limited ...Appellant No.7/A, Huzur Road CODISSIA G D Naidu Towers Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu 641 018 Versus Commissioner of GST and Central Excise ...Respondent Coimbatore Commissionerate No,6/7, A.T.D.Street Race Course Road, Coimbatore 641 018 APPEARANCE:

For the Appellant : Mr. G. Sheerabdhinath, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. N. Satyanarayana, Authorised Representative CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. M. AJIT KUMAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

HON’BLE MR. AJAYAN T.V, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

FINAL ORDER No.40212/2026 DATE OF HEARING: 30.01.2026 DATE OF DECISION: 16.02.2026 Per AJAYAN T.V.

Shri G. Sheerabdhinath, Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that in the Appellant’s Company Petition, (CP) (IB) No.298/2018, the common Resolution Professional had preferred an Interlocutory Application No.1864/2019 before the NCLT, Mumbai Bench – II, seeking approval for the Resolution Plan and the same has been approved by the Adjudicating Authority vide order dated 09.06.2020. Ld. Counsel requested that in the said circumstances, the appeals preferred by the Appellant may be treated as disposed. Ld. Counsel produced the said order dated 09.06.2020 of the NCLT as well as copies of Final Order Nos.40633 – 40642/2025 dated

20.06.2025 passed by this Tribunal earlier, in similar circumstances.

2. Ld. Authorised Representative, Mr. N. Satyanarayana agreed with the submission that NCLT has approved the Resolution Plan and expressed no objections to the request made.

3. We have heard both sides and perused the order of NCLT dated 09.06.2020. The order reflects that three Interlocutory Applications (IAs)-IA No. 1864/2019 in CP (IB) No.298/2018 (in the matter of Aircel Limited), IA No.1863/2019 in CP (IB) No.302/2018 (in the matter of Dishnet Wireless Limited) and IA No. 1865/2019 in CP (IB) No.300/2018 (in the matter of Aircel Cellular Limited) have been filed by Mr Vijaykumar V. Iyer, common Resolution Professional of Aircel Limited, Dishnet Wireless Limited and Aircel Cellular Limited (collectively referred to as 'Corporate Applicants'), under section 30(6) read with section 31(1) of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code (IBC), seeking approval of the Adjudicating Authority for the Resolution Plans submitted by UV Asset Reconstruction Company Limited for resolution of the corporate applicants.

4. NCLT has vide the said order held in para 6.7.3 as under: “ The Resolution Plans placed on record in respect of all the three corporate applicants, viz., (1) Aircel Limited; (2) Dishnet Wireless Limited; and (3) Aircel Cellular Limited, is hereby approved with the modifications mentioned in para 6.7.1 supra. The same shall be binding on the respective corporate applicant, its members, creditors, guarantors, employees and other stakeholders, as also the Resolution Applicants.”

5. At this juncture, it is apposite to note the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ghanashyam Mishra and Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd, reported in [2021] 13 S.C.R 737. The Apex Court has framed the questions that has arisen for consideration by the Court as under:

“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 (hereinafter referred to as ‘I&B Code’)?

(ii) As to whether the amendment to Section 31 by Section 7 of Act

26 of 2019 is clarificatory/declaratory or substantive in nature?

(iii) As to whether after a