2003 (10) TMI 165 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Recovery of demand and penalty in case of the death of the sole proprietor.
2. Legal procedure for recovery from legal heirs.
3. Application of Rule 22 of CEGAT (Procedure) Rules in case of the death of the appellant.

Analysis:
1. The first issue pertains to the recovery of demand and penalty in the event of the death of the sole proprietor. The counsel for the appellant cited a similar matter where it was held that in such circumstances, recovery of demand and penalty is not recoverable, relying on the judgment in the case of D. Matai v. CCE, Mumbai. However, the opposing view was presented by the DR, who argued that the law mandates recovery from the legal heirs who have succeeded to the estate of the deceased. The Tribunal noted the absence of legal heirs contesting the appeal, leading to the dismissal of the appeal as 'abate' in accordance with Rule 22 of CEGAT (Procedure) Rules.

2. Moving on to the second issue, the legal procedure for recovery from legal heirs was discussed. The DR highlighted the obligation to recover demands from legal heirs as per the law. However, it was acknowledged that individual penalty on the present appellant may not be recoverable. The Tribunal emphasized the significance of bringing legal heirs on record to contest the appeal, failing which the appeal may be dismissed as 'abate' as per Rule 22 of CEGAT (Procedure) Rules.

3. Lastly, the application of Rule 22 of CEGAT (Procedure) Rules in the case of the death of the appellant was thoroughly examined. Despite notices being issued and returned undelivered with a "deceased" endorsement, legal heirs were not brought on record to contest the appeal. The Tribunal underscored the requirement for an application from the legal representatives or successor-in-interest within 60 days of the event for the proceedings to continue. In the absence of such application and uncertainty regarding the date of death of the appellant, the oral application to set aside the impugned order was deemed untimely, leading to the dismissal of the appeal as 'abates' in adherence to Rule 22 of CEGAT (Procedure) Rules.