9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 36X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the decisions cited supra, we set aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal of the appellant. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant submitted that the impugned order dated 30.03.2007 is bad in law and not sustainable as the same has been passed against the dead person Shri Harilal M. Patel who was the sole proprietor of the appellant M/s. New Sharada Industries and who died on 27.12.2011, during the pendency of the present appeal. He further submitted that in the impugned order itself it has been observed that Harilal M. Patel was the proprietor of M/s. New Sharada Industries i.e. the appellant. He also submitted that after the death of the sole proprietor, Ashok Kumar K.H. who is the son of the sole proprietor has filed an affidavit to the effect that he has not succeeded to the business of the deceased and he is carrying on business on his own personal capacity a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd Chheda V. CCE, Mumbai-V reported in 2016 (336) E.L.T. 93 (Tri.-Mum.) 2.2. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that as per the Rule 22 of CESTAT Procedure Rules, the appeal shall abate on the death of the appellant. The said Rule is reproduced herein below: "RULE 22. Continuance of proceedings after death or adjudication as an insolvent of a party to the appeal or application: Where in any proceedings the appellant or applicant or a respondent dies or is adjudicated as an insolvent or in the case of a company, is being wound up, the appeal or application shall abate, unless an application is made for continuance of such proceedings by or against the successor-in-interest, the executor, administrator, receiver, liqui ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
