9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 344X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ondent : Shri S.K. Shukla, Authorised Representative ORDER Per : Mr. P.M. Saleem The appellants herein M/s. PSP Projects Pvt. Limited is a successor of M/s. BPC Projects, a proprietorship firm. The said firm M/s. BPC Projects merged with the appellants on 01.4.2009. On the said date M/s. BPC Projects had Rs. 5,89,415/- as PLA balance. The appellants intimated on 26.05.2009 to the Divisional As ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Therefore, all the assets and liabilities of M/s. BPC Projects were taken over by M/s. PSP Projects Pvt. Limited. Hence M/s. PSP Projects Pvt. Limited are rightly entitled to avail PLA balance lying with M/s. BPC Projects on 01.4.2009. M/s. PSP Projects Pvt. Limited have paid the service tax liability of M/s. BPC Projects also after 01.4.2009. Learned Consultant contended that they had intimated t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... correct to hold that transfer of the said amount was not correct and therefore the utilisation of the same towards duty liability of M/s. PSP Projects Pvt. Limited is not proper. The said proposition is not tenable and demanding short levy on the said ground is not sustainable. The learned Consultant also submitted that the demand was time barred. 3. On the other hand, learned Authorised Represe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and is proper and sustainable. 4. On consideration of the arguments of both sides and scrutiny of records, it is observed that there is no dispute that Rs. 5,89,415/- was lying in the PLA account of M/s. BPC Projects as on 01.4.2009. Since M/s. BPC Projects merged with M/s. PSP Projects Pvt. Limited with effect from 01.4.2009, the legal existence of M/s. BPC Projects ceased on 01.4.2009. Whatever ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... about their intention to transfer the amount lying unutilised in the PLA account of M/s. BPC Projects to M/s. PSP Projects Pvt. Limited, on 26.5.2009 and the objection/ demand was raised only on 21.10.2010 and hence liable to be held as time barred. 5. In view of the above analysis, we find that the demand of short levy is not fair and just, nor can it be legally sustained. Hence, the impugned or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
