9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 998X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he year 1983, the firm purchased property and property tax was also paid by firm. In 2008, the property was leased out to M/s Tobacco Board by the firm. The agreement is with the firm. The rent was paid to the firm. TDS was also deducted in the name of the firm. While so, a show cause notice was issued to Sh. Venkateswara Rao demanding service tax on the services of renting of immovable property. After adjudication the original authority confirmed the demand, interest and imposed penalty. In appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the same. Hence this appeal. 3. On behalf of the appellant, the Ld. Consultant Sh. Venkata Prasad submitted that Sh. Venkateshwara Rao was only a partner (Managing Partner) of the firm. He died during the proceedin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ody of individuals, whether incorporated or not, Government, a local authority or every artificial judicial person not falling within any of the preceding. In the present case, the rent is received by the Partnership Firm, viz; M/s Satyanarayana Paddy Boiled Unit (SPBU). The property is owned by them and property tax is also paid in the name of the unit. The premises was given for lease for sole use as auction platform for tobacco growers to enable them to get better price for their produce. The service provider here is M/s SPBU and not the individual partner. Therefore, the show cause notice/demand raised against one partner/Managing Partner is non est in law. An analogous issue was analysed in the case Hindustan Foam Industry Vs. CCE, [19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ases cited by them in a recent case which is reported in [1989 (42) ELT 189] in the case of Additional Collector of Central Excise Vs. Kathiresan Pillai, Honorable Madras High Court while dealing with the matter of cancellation of licence and validity of issue of show cause notice, observed that issue o show cause notice to the firm is not valid, as no show cause notices were issued to the partners as the licenses were in the name of the partners. Neither the firm was licence holder nor has it applied for renewal. Hence the notice issued to the firm was non est in law. In this instant case it is reverse that the firm was licence holder for manufacture of excisable goods and firm was charged for under-valuation and imposed duty and penalty b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
