TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (4) TMI 426
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h of sole proprietor, Sh. Harilal M. Patel, who died on 27.12.2011 when the appeal was still pending. The Tribunal by relying upon the various decisions of the Tribunal and the High Court and also relied upon the decision of Apex Court in the case of Shabina Abraham v. Collector of Central Excise and Customs, 2015 (322) ELT 372 (SC) has ordered that the present appeal abates on the death of the proprietor. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, Revenue filed appeal before the Hon'ble High Court and the Hon'ble High Court, after considering the plea of the Revenue, has allowed the appeal of the Revenue and set aside the CESTAT order dated 30.06.2016 and remanded back the case to the Tribunal for deciding the appeal afresh on merits in accor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of incriminating records/documents/CPUs etc. and investigation was conducted and thereafter a show-cause notice was issued to the appellant alleging the removal of goods clandestinely and also indulging in undervaluation of excisable goods. The appellant rebutted the allegations in the show-cause notice by filing reply and after hearing both parties, the learned Commissioner confirmed the demand of central excise duty of Rs. 58,97,063/- (Rupees Fifty Eight Lakhs Ninety Seven Thousand and Sixty Three only) being the duty on the goods manufactured and removed during the period 18.01.2001 to 31.03.2005 under Section 11A(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and also confirmed the demand of education cess amounting to Rs. 25,595/- (Rupees Twenty F....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g the lifetime of his father. Sh. Ashok Kumar has also stated that there is no provision to recover dues from him as the legal heir who succeeds to the estate of a deceased person by law as laid by the Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of Dhiren Gandhi v. CCE, 2011 (266) ELT 125 (Tri. Bang.) affirmed by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in 2012 (281) ELT 64 (Kar.) and approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shabina Abraham v. CCE, 2015 (322) ELT 372 (SC). Further, we find that it is a settled law that no proceeding can be initiated against the dead person as it amounts to violation of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as the person who is proceeded against is not alive to defend himself. This view has been affirmed in the following case....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., allow it to be presented within such further period as it may deem fit." 4. After hearing the learned AR and after examining the material on record, we find that the appellant was a sole proprietorship concern and Sh. Harilal M. Patel was the sole proprietor of the appellant firm who died on 27.12.2011 when the appeal was pending before this Tribunal. Further, we find that Mr. Ashok Kumar S/o Sh. Harilal M. Patel, has not come forward to defend the case of the appellant rather he has filed an affidavit saying that he has no concern with the proprietorship concern and he has not succeeded to the said business and has distanced himself from the appellant. Further, we find that in view of the Apex Court decision in the case of Shabina Abra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 1982 has not been properly comprehended by the respondent-Commissioner. Such abatement does not extinguish the detriment visited upon the appellant by the lower authority but termination of the appeal that was, otherwise, underway and the continuance of the appeal, should such plea be brought forth by the legal successor, is a privilege permitted by the Tribunal. Such a privilege was neither sought nor granted by the Tribunal. There can, therefore, be no cause for grievance to the respondent-Commissioner. 7. It would, therefore, appear that the respondent-Commissioner, in seeking re-consideration on merit against the deceased appellant, has sought to extend the scope of appellate remedy beyond the appeal itself. With the abatement of appe....