GAURAV AGARWAL Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner before us claims to be the legal heir of Mrs. Mira S. Agarwal. The deceased was a sole proprietress of M/s. Mira Silk Mills having its factory/registered office at the address mentioned in the cause title. She was the wife of Suresh Chand Agarwal. Suresh Chand was the father of the petitioner. Even Suresh Chand has expired.

(2.) The first and second respondents are the officers exercising powers under the Central Excise Act, 1944, and the Rules made thereunder.

(3.) An immovable property situated at MIDC, Area Phase II, Plot No. B-22/2, Dombivli, District Thane, has been attached on 2nd April, 2014. The only contention raised before us by Mr. Raichandani is that the petitioner is the son of late Mira Agarwal. She was the sole proprietress of M/s. Mira Silk Mills. That proprietary concern was, inter alia, engaged in the business of processing of excisable goods. Those goods were subjected to tariff under the tariff items, more particularly set out in Chapters 52, 54 and 55 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The activities of the sole proprietary concern were carried out at this factory premises. Annexure B to this writ petition is relied upon to evidence the death of Mrs. Mira Agarwal on 12th May, 1988. It is stated that after her demise, the petitioner's father Suresh Chand was looking after the affairs of the sole proprietary concern. He was a Power of Attorney holder of the petitioner's mother. Unfortunately, he also expired. Thereafter, the Central Excise officers acting in furtherance of an adjudication order were of the opinion that the dues of the Central Excise Department can be recovered by proceeding against this immovable property. Prior thereto, the adjudication order came to be challenged by the sole proprietary concern.