9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (6) TMI 184 - AT - Central ExcisePenalty u/r 209A of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 on appellant who died - Clandestine removal by the proprietorship firm M/s. Suraj Machine Tools - HELD THAT - Hon ble Apex Court in the case of SHABINA ABRAHAM AND OTHERS VERSUS COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE CUSTOMS 2015 (7) TMI 1036 - SUPREME COURT wherein it has been held that no proceedings can be initiated against the dead person as it amounts to violation of principles of natural justice inasmuch as the dead person who is proceeded against is not alive to defend himself. Further as per Rule 22 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, the appeal shall abate on the death of the appellant unless an application is made for continuation of such proceedings by or against the successor in interest, executor, administrator, receiver, liquidator or other legal representatives of the appellant or applicant or respondent, as the case may be. The present appeal abates on the death of the appellant on whom only penalty was imposed under Rule 209A of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 - appeal disposed off.
Issues:
Appeal against penalty imposed under Rule 209A of Central Excise Rules, 1944 on deceased appellant. Analysis: The appeal was directed against an order imposing a penalty of ?1 lakh on the appellant under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The investigation was conducted into the activities of a firm, and statements were obtained from various individuals. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and penalty against the firm and the appellant. The appellant, who had taken over the management of the company, filed an appeal before CESTAT. After a remand, the original authority again confirmed the demand and penalty. The appellant's counsel argued that the appellant had passed away during the appeal process and presented a death certificate, contending that the appeal should abate following the Supreme Court's decision in Shabina Abraham Vs. CCE [2017(SO) STR 241 (SC)]. The learned AR also acknowledged the appellant's death. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court decision in Shabina Abraham, which held that proceedings cannot continue against a deceased individual as it violates principles of natural justice. Rule 22 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules states that an appeal abates upon the death of the appellant unless a request is made for continuation by the successor in interest or legal representative. Considering the circumstances and the applicable legal principles, the Tribunal held that the appeal abates upon the death of the appellant against whom only a penalty was imposed under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of in accordance with this finding. The judgment, delivered by the members of the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Bangalore, emphasized the legal principle that proceedings cannot be pursued against a deceased individual, especially when the deceased is the sole party against whom a penalty was imposed. The decision rested on the interpretation of Rule 22 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules and the precedent set by the Supreme Court in the case of Shabina Abraham. By applying these legal provisions and established principles of natural justice, the Tribunal concluded that the appeal abated due to the appellant's demise. This ruling highlights the importance of procedural fairness and respect for legal rights even in the context of penalty enforcement under excise rules.
|
