2017 (3) TMI 20 - AT - Service Tax

Maintainability of the appeal - Held that - We note that as pointed out by the learned Counsel for the appellant partnership firm and partner are different for legal treatment - In the title of the appeal the respondent name is mentioned as M/s L.R. Sharma . The full title of M/s L.R. Sharma & Co. is not mentioned. On this ground alone the respondent wants the appeal to be held as non-maintainable - The title of the appeal mentions M/a L.R. Sharma . M/a is short form of Messers i.e. plural of Mr (Mister). Normally it is used for addressing a firm association of persons a partnership. Viewed with these facts we find there is no reason to hold the appeal as non-maintainable on this ground. We have heard the learned AR who agrees that the amount involved is substantial and the matter can be taken up for early disposal - We find merit in the prayer made by the applicant for early listing and hearing of the case - Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Maintainability of the appeal filed by the Revenue against a partnership firm.
2. Early hearing of the appeal filed by Revenue regarding service tax liability.

Issue 1: Maintainability of the appeal filed by the Revenue against a partnership firm:
The respondent filed a miscellaneous application challenging the maintainability of the appeal filed by the Revenue against the original order dated 20/04/2012 of the Commissioner of Service Tax, New Delhi. The respondent argued that the appeal was not maintainable as it was against "L.R. Sharma" instead of the partnership firm "M/s L.R. Sharma & Co." The respondent relied on legal precedents to support their position. However, the Revenue contended that the appeal was clearly against the partnership firm, as indicated in the prayer and the respondent's name mentioned in the appeal. The Tribunal noted the distinction between a partnership firm and its partner but found that the appeal was against the order related to the service tax liability of M/s L.R. Sharma & Co. The Tribunal held that the appeal was maintainable as the respondent's details were correctly mentioned, and the use of "M/a L.R. Sharma" in the title was acceptable for a firm or partnership. The Tribunal dismissed the application, stating that the case laws referred to by the respondent did not support their argument.

Issue 2: Early hearing of the appeal filed by Revenue regarding service tax liability:
Another miscellaneous application was filed for early hearing of the appeal by the Revenue concerning a service tax liability amounting to ?37 crores. The Original Authority had dropped the demand, but the Revenue preferred to appeal. The applicant cited a decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in favor of the applicant and requested early listing of the appeal for a decision. The Tribunal considered the substantial amount involved and agreed to early disposal. After hearing both sides and reviewing the appeal records, the Tribunal found merit in the request for early listing and hearing. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the miscellaneous application for early hearing and directed the Registry to list the matter promptly for final disposal.

This judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI addressed the issues of the maintainability of the appeal filed by the Revenue against a partnership firm and the early hearing of the appeal regarding service tax liability. The Tribunal analyzed the arguments presented by both parties, considered legal precedents, and made decisions based on the facts and legal principles involved in each issue.