Proceedings against a deceased person are void, and an apparent factual error in the order was rectified.

Proceedings initiated through a show cause notice issued to a deceased proprietor were held unsustainable because no valid action can be taken against a dead person and the deceased cannot be heard in defence, engaging natural justice; the challenge to the notice was therefore accepted. The Tribunal also held that its earlier order contained an apparent factual error by recording that death occurred during the appeal when the record showed death before issuance of the notice, making rectification permissible. On that basis, the appellant's rectification application was allowed and the Revenue's rectification request was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the proceedings and demand could survive when the show cause notice had been issued to a person who had already died; (ii) whether the final order contained an apparent mistake liable to be rectified and the Revenue's rectification request was maintainable.

Issue (i): whether the proceedings and demand could survive when the show cause notice had been issued to a person who had already died.

Analysis: The Tribunal noted that the proprietor had died before issuance of the show cause notice and that the notice was therefore issued against a dead person. It applied the principle that no proceedings can be initiated against a dead person, as such action violates natural justice because the deceased cannot defend the case. The Tribunal also observed that the widow was not contesting the demand on merits, but was only challenging the legality of a notice issued in the name of the deceased. Rule 22 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules did not assist the Revenue on these facts.

Conclusion: The proceedings could not validly continue and the challenge to the notice issued to the deceased was accepted.

Issue (ii): whether the final order contained an apparent mistake liable to be rectified and the Revenue's rectification request was maintainable.

Analysis: The Tribunal found that the earlier order had recorded that the proprietor died during the pendency of the appeal, whereas the record showed that he had died much before issuance of the show cause notice. That factual error was held to be apparent from the record and fit for rectification. In view of the same legal position, the Revenue's rectification request did not survive.

Conclusion: The appellant's rectification application was allowed and the Revenue's rectification application was dismissed.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal corrected the factual error in its earlier order and reaffirmed that proceedings initiated against a dead person are unsustainable, resulting in relief to the appellant and rejection of the Revenue's challenge.

Ratio Decidendi: Proceedings initiated against a deceased person are void and cannot be sustained, and an apparent factual error in an order based on the record is amenable to rectification.

---