Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Mrs Bharati Mulchand Chheda Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-V

2016 (3) TMI 850 - CESTAT MUMBAI

Validity of order against the dead person - Held that:- We find that the learned Commissioner was aware of the fact while passing the impugned order that the proprietor of M/s. Canan Domestic Appliances had already expired on 12.11.2003 whereas the impugned order was passed on 29.9.2006. In fact this case was remanded by the Tribunal vide its order dated 15.2.2005 setting aside the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise and remanding the matter for de novo adjudication. Even at that time th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

sing 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) ORDER Per S S Garg The present appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner, dated 29.9.2006, vide which the learned Commissioner confirmed the demand agai .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

house and it was her husband Mr. Mulchand Chheda who was running the business. The appellant at no point of time was ever involved in the carrying of the business. The husband of the appellant, Mr. Mulchand Chheda, suddenly expired on 12.11.2003 due to heart attack and the death certificate is also annexed with the appeal, leaving three school-going children. During the period August 2006, the appellant received notices from the office of the respondent, addressed to her husband. The appellant w .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

mounts to violation of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as the person who is proceeded against is not alive to defend himself. In support of this submission, he cited the following decisions:- (i) Mafhh Products vs. CCE&C, Surat reported in 2003 (57) RLT 596 (Tri.-Mumbai); (ii) D. Matai vs. CCE, Mumbai reported in 2000 (126) ELT 1264 (Tri.); (iii) Shabina Abraham & Ors vs. CCE&C reported in 2015-TIOL-159-SC-CX (iv) CCE, Bangalore-III vs. Shri Dhiren Gandhi reported in 2012- .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version