9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (1) TMI 685X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ir of the deceased sole proprietor had undertaken to pay all the pending central excise liability of the firm – Held that:- As the SCN raising demand was issued almost three years after the undertaking on 2.4.2009. This imply that the dispute pertaining to the demand in question was raised much after the undertaking as such the demand which is subject matter of the SCN cannot be termed as pending as covered by the undertaking given by the legal heir. Therefore, demand confirmed on the basis of aforesaid SCN cannot be sustained. In favour of assessee - E/1501 OF 2012 - A/1168/2012-EX (BR) - Dated:- 13-9-2012 - AJIT BHARIHOKE AND RAKESH KUMAR, JJ. Gaurav Agarwal for the Respondent. ORDER Justice Ajit Bharihoke, President - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9 was issued in the name of the respondent company raising a cenvat credit demand of Rs. 31,74,900 on the premise that the respondent company during the period April, 2005 to Feb., 2006 had wrongly availed cenvat credit in respect of the inputs not received in the factory. The demand was ultimately confirmed by the jurisdictional Addl. Commissioner vide order-in-original dated April, 2009. 4. The legal heirs of Smt. Bimla Rani preferred an appeal against the order-in-original and the Commissioner vide impugned order set aside the order-in-original with the observation that the death of sole proprietor of appellant firm amounted to dissolution of firm as such proposal to demand duty, interest and penalty from the legal heirs of sole propri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duty liability or some pending demand under adjudication. Ld. Counsel submits that show cause notice raising demand was issued much after the undertaking given by the legal heirs of Smt. Bimla Devi, sole proprietor of the assessee firm, as such it cannot be termed as demand pending adjudication when the undertaking was given. Thus it is pleaded that the Commissioner (Appeals) have rightly allowed the appeal of the respondent company. 7. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the records. Undisputedly, late Smt. Bimla Rani was the proprietor of the respondent firm M/s Shree Ambica Steel Industries. She died on 17.9.2006 and after her death the legal heir applied for cancellation of Excise registration in the name of the firm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
