JUDGMENT Devan Ramachandran, J.

When this Appeal was considered today, Sri.R.Harishankar – learned counsel for the appellant, conceded that the respondent – against whom the order of penalty had been enforced – died in the year 2019; and that his legal heirs may have come on record before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘CESTAT’).

2. Sri.R.Harishankar explained that his client was never aware that the respondent had died in the year 2019; and they came to be aware of the event after this Appeal was preferred before this Court.

3. The order impugned before us is the one issued in an Appeal filed in the year 2015. It does not indicate that the appellant before the ‘CESTAT’, namely the respondent herein, had died in the year 2019, or that his legal heirs had come on record.

4. It is thus perspicuous that the ‘CESTAT’ had issued the order in an Appeal filed by a person who was no more, presumably because this fact had not been brought to its notice.

5. The appellant, now being aware of the death of the respondent, must invoke their available remedies before the ‘CESTAT’ before they can seek that the impugned order be set aside by this Court in Appeal.

6. Undoubtedly,