2011 (7) TMI 176

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... in short) are manufacturers of Food products falling under various chapters of Central Excise Tariff. They are also engaged in providing the taxable services of renting immovable properties at Mumbai. During the course of audit of the records of the company, it was noticed that they have not discharged the service tax liability on the renting of immovable properties during the financial year 2007-2008. Accordingly, a show-cause notice dated 05.03.2009 was issued proposing to demand of service tax of Rs.2,62,032/- under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994, interest thereon under section 75 and also proposing to impose penalties under section 76, 77 & 78 of the said Finance Act. 2.2 The assessee contested the demand and submitted that the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... department reiterates the ground urged in the appeal. 4. The Ld. Counsel for the respondent/assessee submits that the Commissionerate at Pune-II has jurisdiction in the Districts of Sindhudurg, Ratnagiri, Sangli, Kolhapur and Satara of the State of Maharashtra vide notification no. 14/2002-CE(N.T) dated 08.03.2002. As far as Mumbai is concerned, the jurisdiction lies with the Mumbai Central Excise Commissionerate. Since the Central Excise officers have been entrusted with the task of enforcing the provisions of service tax law, their jurisdiction in respect of service tax is concurrent with the jurisdiction of Central Excise. Therefore, the Assistant Commissioner in Ratnagiri does not have any power to initiate proceedings and recover s....