2016 (8) TMI 36 - AT - Central Excise

Recovery proceedings against the person who is not alive to defend himself - Evasion of duty - by resorting to under-invoicing and clandestine removal of excisable goods - Held that - the appellant was sole proprietorship concern and Shri Harilal M. Patel was the sole proprietor of the appellant-firm and he died on 27.12.2011 when the appeal was still pending. Further we find in view of the law cited supra no recovery proceedings can be initiated against the dead person. Therefore keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the decisions cited supra, we set aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal of the appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of order passed against a deceased person.
2. Liability of legal representative for recovery of dues from a deceased person.

Issue 1: Validity of order passed against a deceased person
The appeal was against an order confirming a demand for central excise duty against a proprietorship concern. The appellant argued that the order was invalid as it was passed against a deceased person, the sole proprietor of the concern, who had died during the pendency of the appeal. The appellant's son, who did not succeed to the business, filed an affidavit stating that he was not liable for the dues. The appellant relied on legal precedents to support the argument that proceedings against a dead person violate natural justice. The appellant also cited Rule 22 of CESTAT Procedure Rules, which states that an appeal abates on the death of the appellant.

Issue 2: Liability of legal representative for recovery of dues from a deceased person
The appellant contended that no recovery proceedings could be initiated against a dead person, citing legal decisions and Rule 22 of CESTAT Procedure Rules. The appellant's legal representative argued that the estate of the deceased was liable for the dues. After hearing both parties and considering the facts and legal precedents, the Tribunal found that no recovery proceedings could be initiated against the deceased person. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal of the appellant.

In conclusion, the Tribunal held that proceedings against a deceased person are invalid, and recovery cannot be made from the deceased person's legal representative. The appeal was allowed based on the legal principles and precedents cited by the appellant.