2025 (2) TMI 213 - AT - Service Tax

Appeal Proceedings Abated Due to Appellant's Death; No Continuance Application Filed as Required by Rule 22 CESTAT.

The Tribunal held that the appeal proceedings abated following the death of the appellant, a sole proprietor, due to the absence of an application for ... Abatement of appeal - continuation of appeal proceedings, following the death of the appellant, who was a sole proprietor - Rule 22 of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982 - HELD THAT:- The Appellant who was a sole proprietor has died on 16.08.2021 during the pendency of the present appeals. It is also found that in terms of Rule 22 of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982, on the death of the appellant, the proceedings will be abated unless an application is made for continuance of such proceedings by the legal Heirs of the Appellant. In this case, no such application has been received. As the Death has occurred on 16.08.2021, nearly four years passed already. In view of the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SHABINA ABRAHAM AND OTHERS VERSUS COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS [2015 (7) TMI 1036 - SUPREME COURT], wherein it has been held that no proceedings can be initiated or continued against a dead person as it amounts to violation of natural justice in as much as the dead person, who is proceeded against is not alive to defend himself. Conclusion - On the death of the appellant, the appeals stand abated and disposed of in terms of Rule 22 of the CESTAT procedure Rules, 1982. Appeal disposed off. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal question considered in this judgment was whether the appeal proceedings could continue following the death of the appellant, who was a sole proprietor, in light of the procedural rules governing the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). Specifically, the Tribunal examined the applicability of Rule 22 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982, which addresses the abatement of proceedings upon the death of a party involved in the appeal.ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISRelevant Legal Framework and PrecedentsThe primary legal framework considered was Rule 22 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982. This rule stipulates that upon the death of an appellant, the proceedings abate unless a successor-in-interest, executor, administrator, or other legal representative applies for the continuation of the proceedings within sixty days of the death. Additionally, the Tribunal referenced the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shabina Abraham & Ors. Vs. Collector of Central Excise & Customs, which established that proceedings cannot be initiated or continued against a deceased individual as it would violate principles of natural justice.Court's Interpretation and ReasoningThe Tribunal interpreted Rule 22 to mean that the proceedings automatically abate upon the death of the appellant unless an application for continuance is filed by the legal representatives. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of adhering to procedural rules to ensure fairness and justice, particularly when the appellant is no longer alive to defend themselves. The Tribunal also considered the precedent set by the Supreme Court, which underscored the principle that tax laws apply to the living and not to the deceased, thereby reinforcing the rationale for abatement in such cases.Key Evidence and FindingsThe Tribunal noted that the appellant, a sole proprietor, had died on August 16, 2021, and no application for the continuation of proceedings had been filed by any legal heirs or representatives within the stipulated period. The Tribunal found that nearly four years had passed since the death of the appellant, and no steps had been taken to revive the proceedings.Application of Law to FactsApplying Rule 22 to the facts, the Tribunal concluded that the appeals should abate due to the absence of any application for continuance by the appellant's legal representatives. The Tribunal reasoned that without such an application, the proceedings could not be lawfully continued, aligning with the principles of natural justice as articulated in the Shabina Abraham case.Treatment of Competing ArgumentsThe Tribunal did not identify or address any competing arguments regarding the abatement of the proceedings, as the facts and legal framework clearly mandated abatement in the absence of an application for continuance. The Tribunal's decision was based on a straightforward application of Rule 22 and the precedent set by the Supreme Court.ConclusionsThe Tribunal concluded that the appeals could not continue and must be considered abated due to the appellant's death and the lack of any application for continuance by the legal heirs or representatives. The Tribunal's decision was guided by the procedural rules and reinforced by the Supreme Court's judgment in the Shabina Abraham case.SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSThe Tribunal held that the appeals stand abated and are disposed of in terms of Rule 22 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982. The Tribunal emphasized the principle that proceedings cannot continue against a deceased individual without an application for continuance by the legal representatives. This holding aligns with the Supreme Court's reasoning in the Shabina Abraham case, which highlighted the contradiction in attempting to tax the deceased and the necessity for legal provisions to address the continuation of proceedings against the estate of a deceased person.In summary, the Tribunal's decision underscores the importance of procedural compliance and the principles of natural justice in appellate proceedings, particularly when an appellant is deceased. The judgment reaffirms the legal framework that governs the abatement of proceedings and the conditions under which they may be revived.