2009 (1) TMI 612 - AT - Central Excise

Legal heir held liable for deceased assessee's recovery, penalty imposed on firm and proprietor, appeal dismissed.

The Tribunal upheld the recovery from the legal heir of the deceased assessee, affirmed the case against the appellant, and dismissed the appeal due to ... Recovery from legal heir - Proprietary concern Issues:Recovery from legal heir of deceased assessee, Merits of the case, Segregation of penalty on firm and proprietorAnalysis:1. Recovery from legal heir of deceased assessee:The case involved a challenge to the Order-in-Appeal after the sole proprietor of the appellant firm passed away, leaving the legal heir to contest the matter. The appellant's consultant argued that the Department could not recover the amount from the legal heir due to the proprietor's demise. However, the Tribunal noted that duty could be recoverable from the legal representative of the deceased assessee based on the property of the deceased coming into their possession. The Tribunal highlighted previous decisions supporting this principle, emphasizing that the legal heir's liability is not absolved solely due to the death of the assessee.2. Merits of the case:Regarding the merits of the case, the Tribunal considered various factors such as the inculpatory statement of the proprietor, shortages in statutory records, and other evidence. It was observed that the Revenue had established a case against the appellant, as confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The penalty imposed was deemed applicable to both the firm and the proprietor, with no segregation possible in this instance. The Tribunal found no grounds to interfere with the order based on the evidence presented, indicating a clear case against the appellant.3. Segregation of penalty on firm and proprietor:The Tribunal addressed the argument raised by the appellant's consultant regarding the liability of the legal heir. It was clarified that the cited judgment by the consultant was not relevant to the current issue, as the circumstances differed significantly. The Tribunal highlighted the sequence of events post the appellant's death, including dismissal of restoration applications due to non-compliance with stay order conditions. Ultimately, the Tribunal rejected the appeal, emphasizing the applicability of previous decisions cited by the Department's representative. The judgment concluded that the appeal lacked justification based on the facts presented, leading to its rejection by the Tribunal.In summary, the judgment upheld the recovery from the legal heir of the deceased assessee, affirmed the case against the appellant based on the established evidence, and dismissed the appeal due to lack of merit and relevance of cited judgments.