2017 (1) TMI 753 - AT - Central Excise

Proceedings against the Firm - proprietor passed away - is proceedings legal and valid? - Held that - proprietor Sh. Mukesh Sharma of the appellant s firm has passed away on 17-5-2013 and the said facts were brought by the ld. Counsel in the knowledge of the ld. Commissioner - the decision in the case of Shabina Abraham And Others Versus Collector of Central Excise & Customs 2015 (7) TMI 1036 - SUPREME COURT , is applicable to the facts of the case, where it was held that an individual proprietor has died through natural causes and it is nobody s case that he has maneuvered his own death in order to evade excise duty - The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) had no respect to the decision of the higher forum which clearly shows that he has done a grave error of law - no proceedings are sustainable against the appellant - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Proceedings against the appellant post proprietor's demise.

Analysis:
The appellant appealed against an order, citing the demise of the proprietor as grounds for non-sustainability of proceedings, referencing the decision in Shabina Abraham's case. The appellant's counsel argued that the proceedings should abate due to the proprietor's death. The Commissioner, however, dismissed this claim, stating that the proceedings were appellate, not original, and lacked statutory basis for abatement. The Tribunal found the Commissioner's decision contrary to the Apex Court's ruling in Shabina Abraham's case, emphasizing the importance of respecting higher forum decisions. The Tribunal noted that the issue had been settled by the Apex Court and previous Tribunal cases, highlighting the impropriety of continuing proceedings post the proprietor's death. Consequently, the Tribunal held that proceedings against the appellant were unsustainable based on judicial pronouncements, leading to the disposal of the appeal in favor of the appellant with any consequential relief.

This judgment revolves around the crucial issue of the sustainability of proceedings against an appellant following the demise of the appellant's proprietor. The Tribunal analyzed the appellant's argument based on the decision in Shabina Abraham's case, emphasizing the need for proceedings to abate due to the proprietor's death. The Commissioner's dismissal of the abatement claim was criticized for disregarding the Apex Court's ruling and failing to respect higher forum decisions. The Tribunal reiterated the settled position of law established by the Apex Court and previous Tribunal cases, highlighting the impropriety of continuing proceedings post the proprietor's death. Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that no proceedings could be sustained against the appellant in light of the judicial pronouncements, resulting in the disposal of the appeal in the appellant's favor with any consequential relief.