9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 1030X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2017 - Shri Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) Shri Amit A. Sheode, Advocate for the appellant Shri M.P. Damle, Asstt. Commissioner (AR) for the respondent ORDER This appeal filed by Ms. Neeta R. Shewale on behalf of proprietorship concern, M/s Ganesh Electricals Engineering Works. The issue involved is whether deceased should be issued a show-cause notice and a proceeding under that show-cause notice is legal and correct or otherwise. 2. Shri Amit A. Sheode, ld. consultant submits that the appellant was a proprietorship concern. Shri Ramesh R. Shewale filed declaration under VCES and paid the 50% of the declared amount in December 2013. He died on 02.01.2014 and the remaining 50% of the declared amount was also paid b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant. The contention of the present appellant is that Shri G.S. Matai expired on 7-5-1984, therefore, the sole proprietary concern, M/s. Poonam Industries also ceased to exist on or after 7-5-1984. Therefore, no proceedings can be initiated against the said firm. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Jullundur Vegetables Syndicate (supra) held that in the absence of any provision under the Act or under the Rules, no proceedings of assessment can be commenced on the dissolved firm. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, further, held that even the proceedings initiated before the dissolution of the firm cannot sustain. In the present case, we find there is no such provision in the Central Excise Act or under the Rule ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the concern to the legal heir of the proprietary concern is not sustainable in the absence of such provision in the Central Excise Act or under the Rules. The Tribunal has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab vs. Jullundur Vegetables Syndicate reported in 1966 Vol. XVII Sales Tax case (SC). I find that the facts and circumstances of the present case are similar to the case cited by the ld. counsel and this is squarely covered by the said decision. Following the ratio of the cited decision, I allow the appeal of the appellants. 6. As per the above settled position, the show-cause notice issued to the proprietary concern is ab initio illegal. The entire proceedings flowing from the sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
