Manoj Kumar Vs Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise (CESTAT Kolkata)
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata, allowed the appeal against an order confirming service tax demand for the period 2015-16. The appellant had been issued a show cause notice dated 24.12.2020 demanding ₹18,33,958 by invoking the extended period of limitation. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) partly allowed the appeal by setting aside a portion of the demand but sustained a demand of ₹9,98,468 along with interest and penalty. The appellant challenged the remaining demand before the Tribunal.
The Tribunal noted that part of the demand related to receipts reflected in Form 26AS in the name of Aditya Enterprise. The appellant had contended that Aditya Enterprise was his proprietary concern. The Commissioner (Appeals) had held that there was no material to establish that Aditya Enterprise belonged to the appellant. However, the Tribunal found that the appellant had produced, at page 34 of the appeal paper book, a Chartered Accountant-certified statement of assets and liabilities showing that Manoj Kumar was the proprietor of Aditya Enterprise. The Tribunal held that this document established the proprietorship and observed that the confirmed demand had been sustained only because the Commissioner (Appeals) was unable to ascertain this fact. On that ground alone, the Tribunal held that the confirmed demand was liable to be set aside.
