Disposed

Charu Sehgal v. Commissioner of Central Exsice & Anr.

Delhi HC12 Nov 2018W.P.(C)/1533/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging abatement of Central Excise proceedings due to the death of the assessed person. The court distinguished the cited Supreme Court precedent, granted liberty to consider abatement submissions, and disposed of the writ petition without quashing the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to consider abatement submissions; writ petition disposed of without quashing proceedings.

Charu Sehgal Vs Commissioner of Central Exsice & Anr. — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

$~5

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

W.P.(C) 1533/2017

¶4

CHARU SEHGAL ..... Petitioner Through : Mr. Ruchir Bhatia and Mr. Rakesh Chitkara, Advs.

¶5

versus

¶6

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXSICE & ANR. ..... Respondents Through : Mr. Amit Bansal and Ms. Seema Dolo, Advs.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

¶8

O R D E R % 12.11.2018

¶9

The petitioner’s grievance is that the proceedings initiated by the show cause notice dated 21.05.2013, issued to her late husband Sanjay Kumar Sehgal (who died on 01.06.2016), stand abated.

¶10

It is stated that unlike other Revenue enactments, the Central Excise Act does not enable the Revenue authorities to continue with adjudication in proceedings where an individual dies or the proprietary concern which is registered as the dealer, comes to an end on account of the proprietor’s death. Learned counsel relied upon the judgment reported as Shabina Abraham v. Collector of Central Excise and Customs , (2015) 322 ELT 372 (SC).

¶11

This Court has considered the submissions. There are of course observations in Shabina Abraham (supra) suggestive of the fact that in the absence of any provision enabling the impleadment of a successor of an individual, who is the subject of Central Excise adjudication proceedings, the entirety of such proceedings would abate. At the same time, this Court is of the opinion that having regard to the facts of the case, which are rather peculiar, instead of quashing the entire proceedings on an application of Shabina Abraham (supra), it would be appropriate that all the contentions urged in support of the claim made here should be considered and final orders made by the concerned adjudicating authority. Liberty is granted in this regard. If any submissions are made with respect to the abatement of proceedings, the adjudicating authority shall pass a reasoned order on such contentions as well. All rights and contentions of the parties are kept open.

¶12

This writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶13

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J

¶14

PRATEEK JALAN, J

¶15

NOVEMBER 12, 2018 aj

Charu Sehgal v. Commissioner of Central Exsice & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Charu Sehgal v. Commissioner of Central Exsice & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Laxami & Anr. Vs New Delhi Institute of Management & Ors.

Mona Vs Canara Bank & Anr.

Amit Khaneja & Ors. Vs Il&Fs Financial Services Limited

Help Indian Against Corruption through Its President Sh. Manoj Kumar Sharma Vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation

Naroj Kumar Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Billey Singh Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Ankur Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Maan Singh Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Mr. Shekhar Sharma Vs Union of India and Ors.

Mr. Shekhar Sharma Vs Union of India and Ors.

Delhi Govt. Officers and Employees Federation (Regd.) and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Mku Limited Vs Directorate General,Sashastra Seema Bal

Ikea Trading (India) Private Limited Vs the Commissioner, Department of Trade and Taxes Goverment of Nct, Delhi

M/S Dhiraj Gupta Vs Union of India and Ors.