2024 (4) TMI 44

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ority for denovo adjudication. 2. The facts of the case are that M/s Ganpati Enterprises, who was the sole proprietorship concern of Shri Late Prahlad Agarwal, imported one consignment on 26.07.2001 and filed Bill of Entry on 31.07.2001. The goods were examined 1st on 20.08.2001 and thereafter, on 30.08.2001, the said officer examined the goods and found nylon fabric coated with polymer/co-polymer and nylon fabric (stock lot) forwarded samples to Appraising Officer. 2.1 On the basis of examination report and on perusal of samples, the Appraising Group classified 63906.78 MT nylon fabric coated with polymer/co-polymer under CTH 5903 90 and 1304.22 MT nylon fabric (stock lot) under CTH 4507 42 and quantified the duty. 2.2 On 13.09.20....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ide Order dated 03.03.2010, remanded back to the adjudicating authority to decide the case denovo after affording an opportunity to both sides. 2.9 Thereafter, on 04.03.2010, the sole proprietor of M/s Ganpati Enterprises, expired and a copy of Death Certificate was produced. But the adjudicating authority continued to adjudicate the case and the appellant, Shri Ritesh Agarwal received a communication to join the proceedings and Shri Jagdish Khaitan was also joined the proceedings and the adjudication order was passed proposing demand of duty as proposed in the show-cause notice and imposed penalties on all the appellants. 2.10 Aggrieved from the said order, the appellants are before us. 3. Heard both the parties and considered the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ng about how a dead person's assessment is to continue after his death in respect of excise duty that may have escaped assessment. Also, the judgments cited on behalf of revenue, namely, Yeshwantrao v. The Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Bangalore, AIR 1967 SC 135 at pages 140, 141 para 18 : (1966) Suppl. SCR 419 at 429 A-B, C.A. Abraham v. The Income-Tax Officer, Kottayam & Another, AIR 1961 SC 609 at 612 para 6 : (1961) 2 SCR 765 at page 771, The State of Tamil Nadu v. M.K. Kandaswami & Others, AIR 1975 SC 1871 (para 26) : (1975) 4 SCC 745 (para 26), Commissioner of Sales Tax, Delhi & Others v. Shri Krishna Engineering Co. & Others, (2005) 2 SCC 695, page 702, 703 paras 19 to 23, all enunciate principles dealing with tax evasion in the contex....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... whom there may be proceedings for recovery of customs duty. 6. Mr. Harpreet Singh, Learned Counsel for the Customs, submitted that unlike in the decision in Shabina Abraham (supra), in the present case a show cause notice (SCN) had already been issued to the petitioner's deceased father and the same was pending adjudication at the time of his death. 7. The above facts make no difference to the position that there is no machinery provision in the Customs Act whereby the dues owed by a proprietary concern or a partnership firm can be sought to be recovered from the legal heirs of the proprietor/partner of such concern/firm." 6. Therefore, we hold that no proceedings can continue against the importer, M/s Ganpati Enterpri....