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

.... the Respondent : Shri Sanjay Hasija, 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....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....essed to her husband. The appellant was not knowing 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 Domes....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e adjudication proceedings should have been dropped, 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....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 12.11.2003 whereas the impugned order was passed on 29.9.2006. 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 wh....