Proceedings against a deceased sole proprietor cannot continue without valid succession, so excise demand and penalty were set aside.

Proceedings against a sole proprietorship cannot be sustained after the death of the sole proprietor because adjudication and recovery against a deceased person are legally unsustainable. Where no valid continuation is made against a successor-in-interest, the excise demand and penalty order cannot survive for adjudication. Applying the procedural rule on continuance after death, the order was set aside and the appeal was allowed.

---

---

Issues: Whether an excise demand and penalty order could be sustained against a sole proprietorship after the death of its sole proprietor and whether the appeal survived for adjudication.

Analysis: The appellant was a sole proprietorship and the sole proprietor had died during the pendency of the appeal. In such a situation, proceedings cannot continue against a dead person, and recovery cannot be enforced against the deceased in the absence of a legally maintainable continuation against the successor-in-interest. The governing procedural rule on continuance of proceedings after death was applied, along with the settled principle that adjudication against a deceased person is unsustainable.

Conclusion: The appeal was allowed and the impugned order was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Proceedings and recovery cannot be sustained against a deceased sole proprietor, and in the absence of a valid continuation against the successor-in-interest, the adjudication order must be set aside.

---