TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 140X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spondent filed an appeal before the Tribunal which was allowed by the impugned order. The revenue now seeks to challenge the order passed by the tribunal. Thus, the appeal being the continuation of the proceedings, the law as interpreted by the Hon ble Supreme Court in SHABINA ABRAHAM AND OTHERS VERSUS COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE CUSTOMS [ 2015 (7) TMI 1036 - SUPREME COURT] would squarely apply to the instant case on hand - the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Shabina Abraham squarely applies to the facts of this case as observed hereinbefore and the same is binding upon this Court. Application disposed off. - IA NO: GA/4/2022 In CEXA/22/2021 and IA NO: GA/5/2022 In CEXA/22/2021 - - - Dated:- 30-6-2022 - HON BL ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taken up together. GA/5/2022 has been filed by the revenue to substitute the two legal heirs of the deceased second respondent. The second respondent Shri Shankar Lal Agarwal was the director of the first respondent company M/s. Ashirvad Foundries Private Limited. The second respondent passed away on 14 th September, 2019. This application has been filed by the revenue to bring on record these two legal heirs, namely, his spouse Smt. Kiran Devi Agarwal and the son Mr. Ranjan Agarwal as the successors in interest of the deceased second respondent. The prayer sought for by the revenue is opposed by the learned Advocate who had entered appearance on behalf of the assessee. In fact, the first respondent company has filed GA/3/2022 with a p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issued to his wife and four daughters calling upon them to make their submission with regard to the demand of duty made in the show cause notice dated 12th June, 1987 issued to the deceased proprietor. The deceased by letter informed that none of them had any personal association with the deceased in his proprietorship and they were not in a position to locate any business record and further the recorded proceedings initiated against the deceased abated on his death in the absence of any provision in the Central Excise and Salt Act to continue assessment proceedings against a dead person in the hands of the legal heirs. Therefore, the show cause notice was challenged as being without jurisdiction. Since, the Central Excise Authority refused ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee means The person who is liable to pay duty of excise of excise under this Act . Therefore, it was pointed out that the present tense being used, it is clear that the person referred to can only be a living person. The Hon ble Supreme Court agreed with the contention of the appellant that notice that may be served under Section 11A can be only on the person chargeable with excise duty which is referable to the definition of assessee. The revenue contended that the principles applied in case of Income Tax Act should not be applied to the Central Excise and Salt Act as the said Act is a tax on manufacture of goods and not on the person. That argument was rejected taking note of the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in STATE O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act by stretching its provisions. The Hon ble Supreme Court also took note of the celebrated decision of the King s Bench in CAPE BRANDY SYNDICATE Versus IRC reported in (1921) 1 KB 64, wherein it was pointed out that in a taxing Act one has to look merely at what is clearly said. There is no room for any intendment; there is no equity about a tax; there is no presumption as to tax. Nothing is to be read in, nothing is to be implied and one can only look fairly at the language used. Further the Hon ble Supreme Court referred to the decision in CST V. MODI SUGAR MILLS LTD; AIR 1961 SC 1047, wherein the Court pointed out as to how a taxing statute is to be interpreted on any presumptions and the Court must look squarely at the w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es not deal with the liability of a director of a company. It deals with certificate proceedings and is thus distinguishable on facts. Further, the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Shabina Abraham (supra) squarely applies to the facts of this case as observed hereinbefore and the same is binding upon this Court. In view thereof, we are of the view that the decision in the case of Shabina Abraham (supra) is to be applied to the case on hand. Therefore, the objection raised on behalf of the assessee in GA/3/2022 is sustained. In the result, the GA/5/2022 is dismissed and GA/3/2022 is allowed. Consequently, the second respondent late Sankarlal Agarwal is deleted from the array of the parties and the relief granted in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
