2013 (1) TMI 685

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ica steel Industries, Amloh Road, Mandi Gobindgarh (Punjab). 2. Briefly stated the facts relevant for the disposal of this appeal are M/s. Ambica Steel Industries was sole proprietorship concern of one Smt. Bimla Devi. She died on 17.09.2006. Her legal heirs after her death got registration of the respondent under the Excise Act cancelled vide letter dated 18.10.2006. At the time of cancellation of registration, they submitted an undertaking to the department, which is reproduced thus:- "That Smt. Bimla Rani W/o Sh. Mohinder Kumar who was the sole proprietor of M/s. Shri Ambica Steel Industries, Amloh Road, Mandi Gobindgarh, expired on 17.09.2006. That we are the legal heirs of all the assets and liabilities of Late Smt. Bimla Rani....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nd ignoring the fact that at the time of getting the registration of the respondent company cancelled the legal heirs of the proprietor of the respondent company submitted un-conditional undertaking to pay all the pending central excise duty dues of the respondent company and also not to dispose of the assets of the company till the central excise duty liability is finally settled. It is contended that by filing that undertaking the legal heirs of the respondent took upon themselves of the duty liability of the respondent company. As such, now they cannot be allowed to contend that the demand has been wrongly confirmed against them. 6. Shri Gaurav Aggarwal, ld. Advocate for the respondent on the contrary has pressed for dismissal of appe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... to exist. That being the case, the relevant show cause notice dated 2.4.2009 issued to M/s Shree Ambica Steel Industries, Mandi Gobindgarh is bad in law as it was issued against any non-existent firm. This circumstance in itself is sufficient to dismiss the appeal filed by the Department. 8. Coming to the undertaking by the legal heir of sole proprietor of the respondent firm, on perusal of the undertaking reproduced above, we find that legal heir of the deceased sole proprietor of the respondent firm had undertaken to pay all the pending central excise liability of the respondent firm as and when the dues are finally settled. From this it is evident that the undertaking was given in respect of pending dues under dispute. In the instant....