75th Founding Day Lecture Meeting on “India@2030” Know More

February 2012

(2011) 24 STR 721 (Tri.-Mumbai.) — Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolhapur v. Helios Food Additives Pvt. Ltd.

By Puloma Dalal, Jayesh Gogri
Chartered Accountants
Reading Time 2 mins
fiogf49gjkf0d
A show-cause notice proposing demand of service tax and interest thereon sent by Asst. Commissioner, Ratnagiri to the assessee — Service provided by the assessee in Mumbai — Registered office also situated in Mumbai — Commissioner in whose territorial jurisdiction registered office of the service provider is located, has jurisdiction over them.

Facts:
The assessee along with manufacture of the food products in the district of Ratnagiri was also engaged in providing taxable services of renting of immovable property in Mumbai. The service tax on the same was not paid. The show-cause notice demanding service tax of Rs.2,62,032 and interest and penalties thereon was issued to the assessee by the Assistant Commissioner at Ratnagiri. The assessee’s Mumbai office had separate registration with the service tax authorities much prior to the issuance of the show-cause notice. Hence, taking into account the judgment in the case of C.C.E., C. & S.T., BBSR-II v. Ores India (P) Ltd., (2008) 12 STR 513 (Tri.), they contended that the proceedings initiated by the Assistant Commissioner at Ratnagiri are unsustainable.

Held:
It was held that the order confirming the demand of service tax and interest and penalty, etc. could not be sustained in law as held by the lower Appellate Authority as the adjudication authority at Ratnagiri had no jurisdiction over the Mumbai office of the Noticee.

Download PDF

You May Also Like

Succession–ProbateProceeding–Compromise between Parties: Succession Act, 1925.

(2011) 24 STR 723 (Tri.-Del.) — Moon Network Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur.