Court quashes demand notices, invalidates recovery certificate, limits recovery to company only. Petition allowed.

The Court allowed the petition, quashing the Notice of Demand, Communication, and Notices of Attachment issued to the Petitioner and her late father. The Certificate related to recovering dues from them was deemed invalid. The Court held that recovery could only be made from the company, not the individuals. The petition was disposed of without costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Validity of the Notice of Demand dated 9 May 2011.
2. Validity of the Communication dated 26 May 2011.
3. Validity of the Certificate No.01/2011-12 dated 2 May 2011.
4. Validity of the Communication dated 7 June 2011.
5. Validity of the Notice of Attachment dated 1 July 2011.
6. Validity of the Notice of Attachment dated 14 December 2011.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Notice of Demand dated 9 May 2011:

The Petitioner challenged the Notice of Demand issued to her late father by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, which sought recovery of Central Excise duty and penalty from the deceased. The Court noted that the liability to pay excise duty is on the manufacturer of goods, as per Rule 4 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Since the deceased and the Petitioner were not manufacturers, they could not be considered defaulters under the Recovery Rules, 1995. The Court held that the notice was without jurisdiction and quashed it.

2. Validity of the Communication dated 26 May 2011:

This communication directed the Petitioner to pay the dues of M/s. Verma Mukherjee Pvt. Ltd., the company where her late father was a director. The Court reiterated that the liability to pay excise duty is on the company, not its directors or shareholders. The Court found that there is no provision under the Central Excise Act to recover dues from the directors of a limited company. Consequently, the communication was quashed.

3. Validity of the Certificate No.01/2011-12 dated 2 May 2011:

Although the Certificate was not filed before the Court, the Court observed that any certificate to recover dues from the late Balram P. Mukherjee and his daughter was not sustainable. The Certificate was related to the company's dues, and since the recovery could only be made from the company, the certificate against the individuals was invalid.

4. Validity of the Communication dated 7 June 2011:

The Court did not specifically address this communication in detail but implied that any actions based on the invalid notices and communications were also without jurisdiction.

5. Validity of the Notice of Attachment dated 1 July 2011:

The Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise issued this notice to attach the property of the Petitioner and her late father. The Court held that the attachment was invalid as the property belonged to the Petitioner, who was not a defaulter. The attachment notice was quashed.

6. Validity of the Notice of Attachment dated 14 December 2011:

This notice aimed to attach the property at Plot No.113, Village Vadhavali, Chembur. The Court found that the property was gifted to the Petitioner before the issuance of the notice, and she was not liable for the company's dues. The notice was quashed.

Conclusion:

The Court allowed the petition, quashing the Notice of Demand dated 9 May 2011, the Communication dated 26 May 2011, the Notice of Attachment dated 1 July 2011, and the Notice of Attachment dated 14 December 2011. The Certificate No.01/2011-12 was not set aside as it was not filed before the Court, but the Court noted that any recovery from the deceased or his daughter was not sustainable. The petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.

---