9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (7) TMI 176X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s falling under various chapters of Central Excise Tariff. They are also engaged in providing the taxable services of renting immovable properties at Mumbai. During the course of audit of the records of the company, it was noticed that they have not discharged the service tax liability on the renting of immovable properties during the financial year 2007-2008. Accordingly, a show-cause notice dated 05.03.2009 was issued proposing to demand of service tax of Rs.2,62,032/- under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994, interest thereon under section 75 and also proposing to impose penalties under section 76, 77 & 78 of the said Finance Act. 2.2 The assessee contested the demand and submitted that the service has been rendered in Mumbai and they ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal. 4. The Ld. Counsel for the respondent/assessee submits that the Commissionerate at Pune-II has jurisdiction in the Districts of Sindhudurg, Ratnagiri, Sangli, Kolhapur and Satara of the State of Maharashtra vide notification no. 14/2002-CE(N.T) dated 08.03.2002. As far as Mumbai is concerned, the jurisdiction lies with the Mumbai Central Excise Commissionerate. Since the Central Excise officers have been entrusted with the task of enforcing the provisions of service tax law, their jurisdiction in respect of service tax is concurrent with the jurisdiction of Central Excise. Therefore, the Assistant Commissioner in Ratnagiri does not have any power to initiate proceedings and recover service tax in respect of services rendered in Mumbai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted 29.01.2009. That being the position, the competent authority to issue show-cause notice and recover service tax in respect of services rendered in Mumbai, is the Assistant Commissioner of Service Tax in Mumbai and not the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise at Ratnagiri. This Tribunal in the Ores India (P) Ltd., case (referred to supra) has clearly held that as per rule 3 of Service Tax Rules, 1994 read with Board's order no. 1/94 dated 29.06.1994, it is the Commissioner in whose territorial jurisdiction the registered office of the service provider is located, has the jurisdiction over him irrespective of the place where service is provided. In the instant case, the service has been provided at Mumbai and the registered office is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
