Macro Agencies Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Chennai)
The appeal before the CESTAT Chennai could not proceed because the appellant-proprietor had died during the pendency of the proceedings. When the matter was called, no one appeared for the appellant. The counsel informed the Tribunal through a letter dated 10.04.2026 that the appellant-proprietor had passed away and produced a copy of the death certificate issued by the Government of Karnataka. The Department was represented by the Additional Commissioner.
The Tribunal examined Rule 22 of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982, which provides that where an appellant dies, the appeal shall abate unless an application for continuance is filed by the successor-in-interest, executor, administrator, receiver, liquidator, or other legal representative within 60 days of the event. The Rule also permits the Tribunal to condone delay if sufficient cause is shown.
After considering the record, the Tribunal found that the appellant had died on 17.11.2023 while the appeal was pending. It also noted that no application had been filed by any successor or legal representative seeking continuance of the proceedings as required under Rule 22.
The Tribunal further relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Shabina Abraham & Ors. Vs. Collector of Central Excise & Customs, wherein it was held that proceedings cannot be initiated or continued against a deceased person because doing so would violate the principles of natural justice, as the deceased is no longer alive to defend the case.
