9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 643X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... moved the said application before the Tribunal, he was very much available to be heard in the matter. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the learned Tribunal has erred in allowing the said appeal simplicitor on account of the death of the proprietor of the assessee in question. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - C.E.A.No. 4/2017 - - - Dated:- 29-8-2018 - Dr. VINEET KOTHARI AND Mrs. S. SUJATHA JJ. Mr. Jeevan J. Neeralgi, Advocate for Appellant Revenue JUDGMENT Dr. VINEET KOTHARI J. The Revenue has filed this appeal against the order dated 30.06.2016 passed by the CESTAT, South Zonal Branch, Bengaluru, in Appeal No. E/487/2007- DB M/s. New Sharada Industries vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty nine lakhs twenty two thousand six hundred fifty eight only) under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 2. The proprietor of the assessee firm, Mr. Harilal M. Patel filed appeal before the learned Tribunal which was registered as Appeal No. E/487/2007-DB. However during the pendency of the said appeal, it appears that the said proprietor Mr. Harilal M. Patel expired on 27.12.2011, which fact was brought to the notice of even this Court by the communication of his son Mr. Ashok Patel by his letter dated 10.08.2017. The fact of the death of Mr. Harilal M. Patel was also brought to the notice of the Tribunal and therefore on that basis alone, the learned Tribunal set aside th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... implicitor on account of the death of the proprietor of the assessee in question. The demand raised under the impugned order of the Commissioner could be recovered from the estate of the deceased Mr. Harilal M. Patel and therefore the appeal before the Tribunal against that order could not be said to abate with the death of the proprietor. 5. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal deserves to be set aside and the present appeal filed by the Revenue deserves to be allowed on this ground alone. 6. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and we set aside the order of the CESTAT dated 30.06.2016. The matter is restored/remanded back to the learned Tribunal for deciding the appeal afresh on merits in accordance with law. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
