2018 (12) TMI 433 - HC - Central Excise

Abatement of proceedings initiated against deceased - Held that - It would be appropriate that all the contentions urged in support of the claim made here should be considered and final orders made by the concerned adjudicating authority - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Proceedings abated due to death of individual subject to Central Excise adjudication - Interpretation of provisions under Central Excise Act regarding continuation of proceedings after death of individual - Application of Shabina Abraham v. Collector of Central Excise and Customs judgment (2015) - Consideration of peculiar facts of the case - Granting liberty to adjudicating authority to consider contentions regarding abatement of proceedings.

Analysis:
The High Court addressed the grievance raised by the petitioner concerning the abatement of proceedings initiated by a show cause notice issued to her late husband, who had passed away. The petitioner argued that unlike other Revenue enactments, the Central Excise Act does not allow Revenue authorities to proceed with adjudication after the death of an individual or the cessation of a proprietary concern due to the proprietor's demise. The petitioner relied on the judgment in Shabina Abraham v. Collector of Central Excise and Customs, which indicated that without a provision enabling the impleadment of a successor in Central Excise proceedings, such proceedings would abate. However, the Court noted the peculiar facts of the case and decided not to quash the proceedings solely based on the Shabina Abraham judgment. Instead, the Court deemed it appropriate for all contentions supporting the petitioner's claim to be considered by the adjudicating authority, with liberty granted for this purpose. The adjudicating authority was instructed to pass a reasoned order on any submissions regarding the abatement of proceedings, ensuring that all rights and contentions of the parties are preserved.

Therefore, the Court disposed of the writ petition in accordance with the above considerations, emphasizing the need for a thorough examination of the contentions presented and the peculiar circumstances of the case before making final orders.