2012 (11) TMI 869

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., who expired during the pendency of the investigation will survive or not. It is undisputed that Shri Chetanbhai R. Patel expired on 13.08.1999, whereas the Show Cause Notice in this case was issued on 08.05.2002. The said Show Cause Notice was answerable to adjudicating authority, was not answered to by any one as proprietary-ship firm was served a Show Cause Notice after demise of its proprietor. Both the lower authorities in the initial rounds of litigation, confirmed the demand against the firm. This Bench vide Order No.M/745/WZB/AHD/2009, dt.22.06.2009, set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to adjudicating authority to reconsider the issue afresh in the light of the fact of demise of proprietor of the firm. The adj....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ndency of the investigations itself. It is also undisputed that the Show Cause Notice has been issued after the death of the proprietor of the firm, wherein it is alleged that there was clandestine removal of the goods. It is undisputed that there was no reply to Show Cause Notice. In the appeal filed before first appellate authority, this point was taken. I find that the first appellate authority has recorded the following findings in Paragraph Nos.4 & 5 of the order:   4. The Tribunal in the case of Stone Ind. Ltd Vs CCE Calcutta-III, held that it is not a case of non-maintenance of records sililicitor, as the ld.Advocate has tried to make it. Based upon the various discrepancies in the records, the Revenue has come to a conclusion ....