TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 530
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tal an amount of Rs. 5,00,11,867/- during the year 2013-14 and Rs. 7,59,27,497/- during the year 2014-15, towards supply of taxable services. Thereafter a letter dated 01.10.2018 was issued to the appellant asking them to submit the details of payment of service tax with relevant records with exemptions claimed, if any. However, no response was received from the appellant. On completion of the enquiry, a show cause notice dated 17.10.2018 was issued proposing a demand of Rs. 1,55,66,105/- along with interest and imposition of penalties under Section 76, 77, and 78. Thereafter, an addendum was also issued vide F.No.V(ST)15-339/ADC/RPR/2018/ADJ/4088 dated 18.04.2019 for the subsequent period of 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18 (upto June 2017) under which an additional amount of service tax of Rs. 1,27,60,964/- including cess was demanded. The adjudicating authority vide order dated 28.05.2020 confirmed the demand of Rs. 2,83,27,069/- along with interest and the imposition of penalties under section 77 & 78. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the demand had been confirmed on the ground that the service tax had been paid in the partners service tax registration and not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... observed that the partner K. Surendran Nair and the Partnership firm (Appellant) were two separate entities, and on that account, did not consider the payment on the service tax registration. In case of Partnership, the liability of the partners is not limited and if the liabilities of the firm are not discharged by the partnership firm, the same is borne by the partners only. The partners were responsible for the acts of the Partnership firm. Thus, the aforesaid contention of the department that the service tax payment cannot be considered as it has been paid in the service tax registration taken on the partners PAN is devoid of merits and is liable to be set aside. In this regard, learned counsel relied upon the following decisions:- * Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, SURAT-II Vs. Mohammed Farookh Mohammed Ghani [2010 (259) E.L.T. 179-(Guj.)] * Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Jai Prakash Motwani [2010 (258) E.L.T. 204 (Guj.)] * Pravin N. Shah versus. CESTAT [2017 (52) S.T.R. 217 (Guj.)] As regards the provision of service by Shri K. Surendran Nair as alleged by the department, learned counsel submitted that the service of transportation ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....2012 provided for partial reverse charge mechanism for payment of service tax, as per rule 2A. Learned counsel contended that there was suppression on part of the appellant as the appellant was regularly paying the service tax and filing the ST3 returns. Learned counsel relied on the following cases: * Johnson Mattey Chemical India P. Ltd. versus Commissioner Of C. Ex, Kanpur [2014 (34) S.T.R. 458 (Tri. - Del.)] * Aneja Construction versus Commissioner of Service Tax [2013 (32) S.T.R. 458 (Tri. - Ahmd.)] * Central Warehousing Corporation versus Commissioner of Service Tax, Ahmedabad [2016 (41) S.T.R. 106 (Tri. - Ahmd.)] He prayed that the impugned order may be set-aside. 4. Learned Authorized Representative submitted that the Adjudicating Authority vide Order-in-Original dated 28.05.2020 has held that there was no legal provision available to consider the service tax paid in a wrong registration code to a correct registration code. He further contended that the appellant's claim that they have provided services of Transportation of goods which is exempted under Section 66D(p) of the Act has not submitted any documentary evidence. Further, the claim....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation of Goods' services. Learned counsel has submitted before us that the appellant had used the PAN of the partner Shri K. S. Nair at the time of taking registration. However, in this context, we note that the impugned order has held as follows:- "8.2. The Noticee do not dispute the fact that they have provided the taxable services and that they are liable to pay tax. Section 69 of the Finance Act, 1994 stipulates that every person liable to pay the service tax shall obtain a service tax registration (which is granted based on PAN of the applicant). In the instant case, such a service tax registration was already in existence for Shri K. Surendran Nair for the obvious reason that Shri K. Surendran Nair was also providing taxable services for which he was liable to pay service tax. In the written submissions, it has been stated that proprietorship firm of Shri K. Surendran Nair has not provided any taxable services. However, from the documents produced, I find that, contrary to the claim, the Noticee, Shri K. Surendran Nair, has during the period under consideration, also provided taxable services to clients, namely Shree Nakoda Ispat Ltd, Drolia Electrosteels P Ltd, D....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se notice would not absolve the respondents from the liability of removing the goods without payment of duty. However, considering the fact that the duty had been deposited prior to issuance of show cause notice, Commissioner (Appeals) was of the view that the same could be considered as a mitigating factor for reducing the penalty and accordingly, reduced the penalty imposed on the partnership firm from Rs. 4,00,000/- to Rs. 50,000/-. Insofar as the penalty imposed on the partners, namely, respondents herein is concerned, Commissioner (Appeals) after placing reliance upon various decisions of the Tribunal, was of the view that there was no justification for imposition of separate penalties on partnership firm as well as the partners." 9. In some what similar circumstance, the Tribunal in Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Bhopal versus K. K. Kedia [2014 (35) STR 383 - TRI.-DELHI] held as follows:- "3. ........................Admittedly, the Service Tax was wrongly deposited in a wrong code belonging to partnership firm which was dissolved at the relevant time. As such, it is a mistake on the part of the respondents which is required to be rectified and the a....