AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial)
1.The issue involved in these appeals is that whether a partner can be considered as service provider for the service rendered to its partnership firm as the partners of partnership firm are individually called as a partners.
Whereas very same persons are also called collectively as firm. Therefore, partners and partnerships firm, whether can be treated as two distinct person and consequently, whether the transaction between them is exigible to Service Tax. Out of these appeals, some of the appeals are related to demand of Service Tax confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority and some of the appeals are on the refund of the Service Tax and interest already paid on the same issue.
Shri Hardik Modh, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the issue in no longer res-Integra as the identical case has been decided by this Tribunal and High Court in the following Judgments:
• 2021 (50) GSTL 205T Cadila Healthcare Vs. CCE
• 2022 (66) GSTL 99 Gujarat Principle Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Cadila Healthcare
2.2 He submits in view of the above judgments, issue has been settled in favour of the appellant, accordingly appeals be allowed.
Shri Prabhat K Rameshwaram, Learned Additional Commissioner (AR) appearing on behalf of the revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order.
3.1 He submits that whether the judgments cited by the learned Counsel is applicable needs to be seen from facts of each case. Accordingly, he submits that the matter may be remanded to the Adjudicating Authority to reconsider the matter considering the facts of the present case as well as the facts of the judgments of Cadila Healthcare and thereafter to decide whether the ratio of judgments is applicable.
On careful consideration of the submission made by both the sides and perusal of record, we find that the issue involved in the present case and the issue in the judgment of Cadila Healthcare cited by the learned counsel prima facie appears to be identical. However, we agree with the submission of the learned AR that before applying the ratio of any judgment, it needs to be seen whether the facts of both the cases are identical or otherwise.
4.1 Accordingly, we are of the view that since the Adjudicating Authorities have not seen judgment of Cadila Healthcare, in the interest of justice, the matter needs to go back for reconsideration in the light of the judgments in the case of Cadila Healthcare, cited above.
Accordingly, the impugned orders are set aside. Appeals are allowed by way of remand to the adjudicating authority for passing a fresh order.