9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (11) TMI 651X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... second time. Earlier, matter has been remanded to the concerned adjudicating authority to examine the issue whether service of the notice on the partners of the erstwhile partnership firm was correct in law, raising the demand as such can be valid notice under Section 11A of the Act. In this context, he drew our attention to the operative portion of the order of the Tribunal as appeared in Para 2(d) of the Order (F/946-948/1, dated 24-5-2001) which is as under : - 2(d) We have considered the submission that demand has been issued under Section 11A and as per Section 11A(1) it was required to be served on the person who was liable to pay duty and for the period prior to the incorporation of the appellant company i.e, the date the present ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and liabilities including the loan, contracts, rights, which included the right to carry on the said business. From the said clause of the deed it is explicit that all the liabilities pertaining to the going concern were taken over by the new company and same was the purpose of the Deed of Dissolution. In fact when the partners of the erstwhile firm are the only Directors and carried on the same business in the same premises with the assets and liabilities, then how the liability pertaining to taxes and duties can be excluded pertaining to the partnership firm from them. However, I find that these facts were never brought to the notice of the Hon ble Tribunal and kept under carpet to take the undue benefit of the provisions of the law that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rule 209A cannot be deemed to be a demand notice under Section 11A of the Act. No notice of demand has been issued under Section 11A of the Act. He contended that accordingly, the entire order is liable to be set aside since it was proceeded to pass an order without giving a finding on the service of demand notice to the partners under Section 11A of the Act. He vehemently argued that in spite of the specific finding to examine the issue on the validity of the service of notice on partners, before raising the demand same has not been considered by the adjudicating authority as can be seen from the impugned order. 3. Smt. Radha Arun, ld. DR appearing for the Revenue fairly conceded that there is no clear finding by the adjudicating author ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
