2016 (3) TMI 850

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Superintendent (AR) ORDER Per S S Garg The present appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner, dated 29.9.2006, vide which the learned Commissioner confirmed the demand against M/s. Canan Domestic Appliances, who is a sole proprietor. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the present appellant, Mrs. Bharati Mulchand Chheda, has filed the present appeal in the capacit....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nowing the implication of the notice and was afraid to appear before the excise authority and, therefore, did not respond to the said notice and on 10.10.2006, the appellant was shocked to receive the impugned order whereby the respondent has confirmed the show cause notice dated 26.2.1998 and confirmed duty demand of Rs. 33,83,067/- on M/s. Canan Domestic Appliances and also imposed penalty of Rs....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pped, but the learned Commissioner still passed the adjudication order against M/s. Canan Domestic Appliances which was a sole proprietorship of Mr. Mulchand Chheda. He further submitted that it is a settled law that no proceedings can be initiated against a person who is dead as it amounts to violation of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as the person who is proceeded against is not ali....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....6. In fact this case was remanded by the Tribunal vide its order dated 15.2.2005 setting aside the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise and remanding the matter for de novo adjudication. Even at that time the proprietor was no more, but in spite of this, the learned Commissioner passed the impugned order against the dead person who was the sole proprietor of M/s. Canan Domestic appliances, ....