9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 850X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... against the dead person who was the sole proprietor of M/s. Canan Domestic appliances, which is against the settled position of law as held by various decisions of the Tribunal We are of the considered opinion that once the factum of death of the sole proprietor has come to the knowledge of the learned Commissioner, the learned Commissioner should have dropped the proceedings rather than passing the impugned order, but he chose to pass the impugned order against the dead person, which is not sustainable in law. - Appeal No. E/279/07-Mum - A/86424/16/EB - Dated:- 10-3-2016 - S S Garg, Member (J) And Raju, Member (T) For the Appellant : Shri Yogesh Patki, Adv For the Respondent : Shri Sanjay Hasija, Superintendent (AR) O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of ₹ 33,83,067/- on M/s. Canan Domestic Appliances and also imposed penalty of ₹ 16,44,577/- under Section 11AC and ordered for the recovery of interest along with other penalties on M/s. Canan Domestic Appliances. Thereafter the appellant has filed the present appeal against the impugned order. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order dated 29.9.2006 is bad in law and not sustainable as the same has been passed against the dead person, Mr. Mulchand Chheda who expired on 12.11.2003. The learned counsel also submitted that Mr. Mulchand Chheda was the sole proprietor of M/s. Canan Domestic Appliances and he expired on 12.11.2003 and this fact was in the notice of the Commissioner as this fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and remanding the matter for de novo adjudication. Even at that time the proprietor was no more, but in spite of this, the learned Commissioner passed the impugned order against the dead person who was the sole proprietor of M/s. Canan Domestic appliances, which is against the settled position of law as held by various decisions of the Tribunal cited above. We are of the considered opinion that once the factum of death of the sole proprietor has come to the knowledge of the learned Commissioner, the learned Commissioner should have dropped the proceedings rather than passing the impugned order, but he chose to pass the impugned order against the dead person, which is not sustainable in law. 7. Therefore, keeping in view the facts and ci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
