2016 (3) TMI 956

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....etitioner company was the proprietor of M/s.Atchaya Enterprises, which was engaged in the business of providing erection, commissioning and installations services and they are registered with the Service Tax Department from 10.07.2007. During verification by the officers of the second respondent, it was noticed from the returns filed by M/s.Atchaya Enterprises that they had provided taxable services to some companies. It was noticed that M/s.Atchaya Enterprises had charged and collected service tax from the recipients of services and had remitted the same to the Service Tax Department. The third respondent issued a show cause notice on 29.02.2012 calling upon M/s.Atchaya Enterprises to show cause as to why service tax should not demanded fr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... in existence and was not carrying on manufacturing activities till 31basic or fundamental nature. The appellant herein was incorporated only on 29thJanuary, 1998 and came into existence on the said date as a separate juristic entity and a legal person. It was registered under the Act and started manufacturing activities from 1stApril, 1998. The appellant could not have indulged in clandestine and wrong sales prior to 29thstMarch, 1998. Before the said date, Kuldeep Singh Punn in his individual capacity as a sole proprietor of Freezair India was carrying on the business of manufacture and sales of air conditioner and cooling units from the same premises from where the appellant started operating. However, this does not mean that the appella....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e case of revenue is based on one Shri Rajesh Jain, being an erstwhile partner of M/s Rangoli Prints, and presently, being a partner of the petitioner firm having committed to discharge liability of M/s Rangoli Prints. As noted hereinbefore, despite categorical statement made in the affidavit in rejoinder denying any undertaking by Shri Rajesh Jain vide letter dated 15thApril, 2003, respondents have failed to produce any such document. In these circumstances, it is apparent that there is no evidence to link the petitioner firm with M/s Rangoli Prints. The only tenuous link, according to revenue, is the common partner Shri Rajesh Jain. Even if the said fact is admitted and accepted, all that can happen in the circumstance is that Shri Rajesh....