TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (2) TMI 246
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lf can be finally disposed of at this stage without prejudice to the respondent. Accordingly, after rejecting the stay application, we take up the appeal. 2. In adjudication of a show-cause notice dt. 22/04/2008, the original authority had confirmed demand of service tax of Rs.16,06,020/- (Education cess included) against M/s. Ch. Devadanam, a partnership firm, for the period from 01/10/2002 to 31/03/2007 under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994, also demanded interest thereon under Section 75 of the Act and imposed penalties on them under Sections 76 to 78 of the Act. The order-in-original, inter alia, indicated the breakup of profits allocated to the partners of the firm as shown below: 1. Shri Ch. Devadanam 40% Rs.13,681/- ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ue of appropriate directions to the firm to submit the reply to the notice and to entertain reply from the firm only and not from the legal heirs of the deceased unless they were included as a partner in place of their father in the reconstituted firm. 3. The Order-in-Original is accordingly set aside for fresh decision in the light of the above directions. 4. In the present appeal, the Department submits that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) did not have the power of remand and hence could not have validly passed the above order. The appellant in this connection claims support from the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in the case of MIL (India) Ltd. Vs. CCE, Noida 2007(210) ELT 188 (SC)] wherein it had been held ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g the demand of tax and allied proposals. After hearing him, the original authority confirmed the demand of tax with interest against the firm and imposed penalties. The order-in-original was addressed to M/s. Ch. Devadanam represented by Ch. Lazarus. From that order, it appeared to Ch. Lazarus that he was entitled to challenge it. Accordingly, he preferred an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) and the latter passed the impugned order, the operative portion whereof has been reproduced herein before. 6. It has been contended by the learned Additional Commissioner (AR) that the partnership firm having ostensibly be represented by Ch. Lazarus before the original authority should be presumed to have survived beyond the date of death of his....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tnership consisting of only two partners, no partnership remains on the death of one of them and, therefore, it is a contradiction in terms to say that there can be a contract between two partners to the effect that on the death of one of them the partnership will not be dissolved but will .... Partnership is not a matter of status, it is a matter of contract. No heir can be said to become a partner with another person without his own consent, express of implied." "....if one of the partners dies, there will not be any partnership existing to which the legal representatives of the deceased partner could be taken in. In such a case the partnership would come to an end by the death of one of the two partners, and if the ....