2017 (8) TMI 155 - AT - Central Excise

Refund of amount deposited by Shri Ramdas Gupta against the stay order - tobacco business - amount was deposited by Shri Ramdas Gupta, who died and now refund claimed by Shri Mithai Lal Gupta, who claimed to inherit the tobacco business - Held that - I have also perused the vasiyatnama which is said to have been executed by Shri Ram Das Gupta. Even though the vasiyatnama mentions that Shri Mithai Lal Gupta will inherit the tobacco business of Shri Ram Das Gupta after his death, I find that the appellant has failed to produce the probate certificate issued by the appropriate court in his favour confirming the fact that he is the legitimate successor of Shri Ram Das Gupta for the purpose of claiming the refund amount - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Claim for refund of pre-deposit amount by the son of deceased appellant.
2. Requirement of probate certificate for establishing legitimacy as a successor.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against an order dated 30.05.2011 regarding a demand initiated against the deceased appellant, who had paid a pre-deposit amount of ?3,00,000. After the appellant's death, the case was remanded back to the Adjudicating authority by the Hon'ble CESTAT. The son of the deceased appellant filed a refund claim based on a Vasiyatnama dated 15.07.2007, stating that he was made in charge of the property and business by his late father. However, the claim was rejected by the original adjudicating authority and the Commissioner (A) due to the absence of a probate certificate confirming his legitimacy as the successor.

2. The appellant's counsel submitted a registered Vasiyatnama mentioning the transfer of the tobacco business to the son after the appellant's death. The issue arose regarding the necessity of a probate certificate for the will executed in favor of the son. The Departmental Representative argued that the will needed to be probated before the refund could be issued to the son as the legitimate successor. The Tribunal considered the documents and the arguments presented.

3. The Tribunal acknowledged that the pre-deposit amount was due for refund, but the dispute revolved around the recipient of the refund. Despite the Vasiyatnama naming the son as the inheritor of the business, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of a probate certificate issued by the appropriate court to establish the son as the legitimate successor. Since the son failed to produce such a certificate confirming his status as the rightful successor, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order rejecting the refund claim. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed due to the absence of the required probate certificate.

This judgment underscores the significance of a probate certificate in establishing the legitimacy of a successor in cases involving wills and inheritance, particularly concerning financial matters such as refund claims in legal proceedings.