9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 998X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... DELHI] - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - ST/30795/2016 - A/30375/2017 - Dated:- 2-3-2017 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi, C.S., Member(Judicial) Sh. Venkata Prasad, Consultant for the Appellant. Sh. Nagraj Naik, Deputy Commissioner (AR) for the Respondent. Order per: Sulekha Beevi, C.S.] The above appeal is filed against the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) who upheld the confirmation of service tax on renting of immovable property. 2. The appellant, Maturu Panchakshari is the legal hier of Sh. Venkateswara Rao who was the Managing Partner of Sri Satyanaryana Paddy Boiled Unit (SPBU) a partnership firm which had four partners. In the year 1983, the firm purchased property and property tax was also paid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s seen that the property is in the name of the firm Sri Satyanarayana Paddy Boiled Unit. Therefore, the said firm is the service provider. However, the Department has issued notice of demand for service tax against one partner. Under Section 3(42) of General Clauses Act person shall include any company or association, body or individuals, whether incorporated or not. It would thus include charitable trust, partnership firm, or any other organization which has separate rights. Section 65B(37) of the Finance Act defines person as person includes an individual, a Hindu Undivided Family, a company, a society, a limited liability partnership, a firm, an association of persons or body of individuals, whether incorporated or not, Government, a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the firm was not served with the notice but the partners. The term Person has not been defined in the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. In the absence of definition of the term Person in the Excise Act, the term has to be understood as used in legal terminology which includes individual, firm, Society, Club, Association of person, etc. Excise duty is leviable on the excisable goods manufactured by the person who is a manufacturer and the excise law does not contemplate more than one party as manufacturer of the same commodity. The contention of the appellants has got a force in distinguishing the firm from partners in view of the ratio of the decision cited supra. Apart from the cases cited by them in a recent case which is reported ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
