2018 (7) TMI 1124

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....li and the said proprietary concern had provided security agency service during the period from April 1999 to March 2004. The Department issued a show-cause notice dt. 17/09/2004 proposing to demand service tax of Rs. 8,57,966/- for the period from April 1999 to March 2004. Before the adjudication, the proprietor expired due to cancer and the service tax registration issued to the firm was surrendered vide letter dt. 19/05/2005 by his son along with copy of the death certificate and the factum of death, submission of the death certificate and surrender of service tax registration are recorded in para 5 of the Order-in-original No.4/2006 dt. 18/09/2006 and has not been disputed. After following the due process, the adjudicating authority con....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e period from December 2002 to March 2004. The appellant challenged the said order before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Commissioner (Appeals) vide Order-in-Appeal No.278/2009 dt. 03/07/2009 has held that liability to service tax will not arise in case of proprietary concern after the death of the proprietor and allowed the appeal. 3 In the above background, we have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned AR for the Revenue and perused the records. 4.1 Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order passed in revision imposing the penalty of Rs. 7,79,897/- under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 is not sustainable in law and is contrary to the binding judicial precedent. He further submitted ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... On the other hand, the learned AR defended the impugned order. 6. After considering the submissions of both sides and material on record and the various decisions relied upon by the appellant, we find that it is a fact that Shri M.B. Lingadalli who was the proprietor of the firm died on 18/04/2005 and that too before the case was a adjudicated. It is also a fact that service tax registration was surrendered vide letter dt. 19/05/2005 and the said letter is on record. In view of the death of the sole proprietor, no recovery proceedings can be initiated against the appellant in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shabina Abraham cited supra. Further we find that the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dt. 03....