Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Central Excise vs M/S. K K Kedia on 21 January, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
PRINCIPAL BENCH, COURT NO. III
Service Tax Appeal No. 57726 of 2013 SM
[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 62/BPL/2013 dated 25.2.2013 passed by Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise & Service Tax, Bhopal ]
For approval and signature:
Honble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial)
1
Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
No
2
Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
No
3
Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
Seen
4
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
Yes
Commissioner of Central Excise Appellants
& ST, Bhopal
Vs.
M/s. K K Kedia Respondent
Appearance:
Shri R K Mishra, AR for the Appellants None for the Respondent Date of Hearing/decision : 21.1.2014 FO ORDER NO._50261/2014__ Per Archana Wadhwa:
Being aggrieved with the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Revenue has filed the present appeal.
2. After hearing both the sides, I find that the respondent was a partner in a partnership firm engaged in providing management and repair services. With effect from 1.4.2011, the said partnership firm was dissolved and fresh registration was granted to the appellant as a person. The said respondent filed a refund claim of Rs.9,39,564/- in respect of service tax paid by him, by way of adjustment of the said amount which was deposited by him in a wrong code belonging to partnership firm. The said adjustment was not allowed by the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise. On appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the respondent was one of the partnership of the erstwhile Partnership was eligible to claim refund, if otherwise admissible. He observed that when the amount in question does not pertain to any outstanding liability of the partnership firm, the money deposited by the respondent who is not a new in the old service tax registration code belonging to the partnership firm is a shear mistake and has to be considered as a money deposited by Shri K K Kedia in his own service tax code. He accordingly allowed such adjustment.
3. I do not find any infirmity in the finding of the appellate authority. Admittedly, the service tax was wrongly deposited in a wrong code belonging to partnership firm which was disallowed at the relevant time. As such, it is a mistake on the part of the respondents which is required to be rectified and the amount deposited in the partnership firm is required to be adjusted in the assessee registered code.
4. In view of the above, appeal is rejected.
(operative part of the order pronounced in the open court )
( Archana Wadhwa ) Member(Judicial)
ss
??
??
??
??
3