9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (7) TMI 293X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ew of Section 35 of Central Excise Act, delay was not condoned. As a result where of the appeal could not have sustained. The ground of death as taken is also not sufficient in explaining the impugned delay as admittedly the death of proprietor of appellant occurred during the pendency of proceedings before Commissioner (Appeals). There is no doubt about the fact that no demand can be confirmed and no recovery proceedings can be initiated against a dead person. In the present case, Commissioner (Appeals) has not passed any order of confirming any demand against the dead person. The Order was squarely on the ground of limitation. The same has been upheld by this Tribunal only because of the statutory mandate upon the Commissioner (Appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... condone the delay even beyond 3 months if the sufficient cause has been shown. It is further submitted that it was specifically mentioned before this Tribunal at the time of the impugned final order which is prayed to be rectified that the appellant was the proprietorship firm of Mr.D.A.Khan, who died during the pendency of appeal before Commissioner (Appeals). This fact was also brought to the notice of the Commissioner (Appeals) by wife of deceased vide her letter dated 18.09.2017 enclosing the death certificate of Mr. D.A. Khan. The said fact has even been recorded in the order of Commissioner (Appeals), but the same has neither been considered by Commissioner (Appeals) nor by this Tribunal. Alleging the same to be an error apparent on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) ELT 163 has upheld the order of Commissioner (Appeals). We observe that in the judgment of Singh Enterprises (supra) case the Hon ble Apex Court has clarified as follows:- 10 . Sufficient cause is an expression which is found in various statutes. It essentially means as adequate or enough. There cannot be any straitjacket formula for accepting or rejecting the explanation furnished for delay caused in taking steps. In the instant case, the explanation offered for the abnormal delay of nearly 20 months is that the appellant concern was practically closed after 1998 and it was only opened for some short period. From the application for condonation of delay, it appears that the appellant has categorically accepted that on receipt of or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai reported in 2016 (336) ELT 93 has held: we are of the considered opinion that once the factum of death of sole proprietor has come to the knowledge of ld. Commissioner, the ld. 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. 5. In the present case, Commissioner (Appeals) has not passed any order of confirming any demand against the dead person. The Order was squarely on the ground of limitation. The same has been upheld by this Tribunal only because of the statutory mandate upon the Commissioner (Appeals) to not to condone the delay beyond three months. Therefor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
