C.C.E. Chandigarh vs M/S. Supreme Glass Industries

[Arising out of Order-In-Original No. 216/CE/CHD/05 dated: 03.06.2005 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise Chandigarh]

For approval and signature:

Hon'ble Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical)

Hon'ble Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial)

1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?

4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?

C.C.E. Chandigarh ...Appellant

Vs.

M/s. Supreme Glass Industries Respondent

Appearance:

Mr. R.K. Grover, DR for the Appellants

Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, Advocate for the Respondent

CORAM:

Hon'ble Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical)

Hon'ble Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial)

Date of Hearing/decision.15.01.2015

FINAL ORDER NO. 50182 /2015-Ex(Br)

Per Rakesh Kumar (for the Bench):

In this case, by an order passed by the Joint Commissioner, the duty demand of Rs. 9,68,251/- had been confirmed against the respondent, a proprietorship concern of Shri Amarjeet Singh Chaddha along with interest thereon under section 11AB and beside this while equal amount of penalty had been imposed on the Respondent firm under section 11AC, another penalty of Rs. 2.5 Lakh had been imposed under Rule 173Q(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Rule 25(1) of Central Excise Rules, 2001. On appeal being filed to Commissioner (Appeals) against this order of the Joint Commissioner, the Commissioner(Appeals) vide order in appeal dated 03.06.2005 set aside the Joint Commissioners Order. Against the Commissioner (Appeals) order, the Department is the appeal.

2. Heard both the sides.

3. Shri Gaurav Aggrawal, Advocate, the Ld. Counsel for the respondent states that the proprietor of the respondents firm Shri Amarjeet Singh Chaddha had expired, and in this regard the death certificate had been produced which is on record. He pleaded that the Tribunal in the case of CCE Chandigarh vs Shri Ambika Steel Industries reported in 2013 (288) ELT 420 (Tri. Del.) has held that with the death of the sole proprietor of a proprietary concern, the Proprietary concern ceases to exist as a sole proprietorship concern has no legal existance, independent of its proprietor and consequently the issuance of the Show Cause Notice demanding duty from the proprietorship concern is bad in law. He pleaded that this judgment of the Tribunal is squarely applicable to the facts of this case and accordingly, he pleaded for dismissal of the Revenues appeal.

4. Shri R.K. Grover, Ld. DR, does not dispute the respondents submission that Shri Amarjeet Singh Chaddha proprietor of the Respondent firm has expired on 16.07.2011.

5. In view of this, following the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of CCE Chandigarh vs. Ambika Steel Industries, the Revenues Appeal has to be dismissed. Moreover, in view of the Rule 22 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982, on account of the death of the Respondent and in absence of any application by the Revenue for continuation of the proceedings against the successor, the appeal has also to be dismissed as abated. In view of this, the Appeal is dismissed.

(Dictated and pronounced in open court)

(Rakesh Kumar) (S.K. Mohanty)

Member(Technical) Member(Judicial)

Neha

Page | 3