TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 1270X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... present appellants were nowhere in the picture in the proceedings before the adjudicating authority - it is not the case of Revenue recovery proceedings on confirmed duty liability during the life time of an importer. It is a case where the duty liability itself was determined after the death of the proprietor–importer - such demand of duty cannot be confirmed against the deceased person. Consequently, there can be no question of liability on the purported legal heir either for duty or redemption fine. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - C/1002-1003/2005-CU[DB] - C/A/56672-56673/2017-CU[DB] - Dated:- 1-9-2017 - Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) And Mr. B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Present for the Appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r (Adjudication). In fact, as seen from para 149 of the impugned order, the present two appellants, who are family members of Shri Gurmeet Singh Sehgal, Proprietor of M/s. Prince Electronics were brought into the picture as purported legal heir of Shri Gurmeet Sehgal. The acts and omissions of Shri Sehgal, which resulted in the duty demand and penal consequence, were fastened on these two appellants as legal heirs. The show cause notice dated May, 1999 was issued, among others, to Shri Gurmeet Singh Sehgal alleging various misdoings, under the provisions of Customs Act, 1962. The case was adjudicated resulting in impugned order dated 08.04.2005. Shri Gurmeet Singh Sehgal passed away on 04.06.2001, much before the adjudication order was issu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Hon ble Supreme Court in Shabina Abraham (supra) categorically held as below:- 8. On a reading of the aforesaid provisions, it is clear that Shri Rajshekhar Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants is correct - there is in fact no separate machinery provided by the Central Excises and Salt Act to proceed against a dead person when it comes to assessing him to tax under the Act. 9. The position under the Income Tax Act, 1922 was also the same until Section 24B was introduced by the Income Tax (Second Amendment) Act of 1933. Prior to the introduction of the aforesaid Section, the Bombay High Court had occasion to deal with a similar question in Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay v. Ellis C. Reid, AIR 1931 B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ure has not chosen to make any provisions expressly dealing with assessment of, or recovering payment from, the estate of a deceased person. In order that the Government may succeed and the assessment made in this case may be held legal I think, one must do a certain amount of violence to the language of Section 23(4); I think one must either do a certain amount of violence - I should say a considerable amount of violence - to the language of Section 27, or else hold that the privilege conferred on a living person assessed under Section 23(4) of getting the assessment set aside is not to be enjoyed by the estate of a deceased person - a distinction for which I can see no logical reason. One must also construe Section 29 so as to give to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... definition is exhaustive in nature and that there is no scope to read anything further into the said definition. 18. As has been correctly pointed out by learned counsel for the appellants, the notice that is served under Section 11A is only on the person chargeable with excise duty, which takes us back to assessee as defined. 6. In the present case, Shri Gurmeet Singh Sehgal was issued with notice for demand of Customs Duty as well as for penal proceedings. The present appellants were nowhere in the picture in the proceedings before the adjudicating authority. We note that it is not the case of Revenue recovery proceedings on confirmed duty liability during the life time of an importer. It is a case where the duty liabilit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
