TATA STEEL LIMITED GROWTH SHOP THROUGH ITS HEAL LEGAL TAXATION SRI VIKASH MITTAL V. COMMISSIONER CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX JAMSHEDPUR

T.A./9/2020

AI Insights

The case involves two appeals: one by the Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise, Jamshedpur (Revenue) and the other by Tata Steel Ltd. (TSL), both challenging the order of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). The Revenue appealed against the Tribunal's decision that service tax could not be demanded beyond the normal period, while TSL contested the confirmation of service tax demand for the normal period. The core issue was whether services provided by TGS, a unit of TSL, to another unit of TSL (Steelworks) constituted taxable services under the Finance Act, 1994. The High Court ruled that such intra-company services do not qualify as taxable services as they amount to 'service to self', which is not taxable under the Act.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 690970 (HC-JHARKHAND)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 11-12-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex., 2008 (228) ELT 124 (T-Kol), General Manager, BSNL Cellular Mobile Services v. Commr. of GST & C.Ex.,2019 (25) GSTL 238 (T), Sahara India Commercial Corporation v. Commr. of C. Ex., 2019 (21) GSTL170, C.C., C.Ex. & S.T. v. Parker Markwel Industries Pvt. Ltd., 2019 (24) GSTL 42, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd, v. Commissioner of C.Ex., Patna 2007 (8) STR 527, CCE, Navi Mumbai Vs Amar Bitumen & Allied Products Pvt. Ltd., 2006 (202) ELT 213 (SC), Union of India & Others v. Kaumudini Narayan Dalal & Another [2001 (10) SCC 231], Collector of Central Excise Pune v. Tata Engineering & Locomotives Co. Ltd [2003 (158) E.L.T. 130 (S.C.)], Birla Corporation Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise [2005 (186) E.L.T. 266 (S.C.)], Jayaswals Neco Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur [2006 (195) E.L.T. 142 (S.C.)]
• Laws Referred To: Central Excise Act, 1944, Service Tax Rules, 1994, Finance Act, 1994, Companies Act, 1956, General Clauses Act, 1897
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: SAMEER CHAKRABORTY; P A S PATI
• Assessee Lawyers: AMIT KUMAR; SAMEER CHAKRABORTY
• Keywords: CENVAT credit; Extended Period of Limitation; Normal period of limitation; Service tax; Suppression of facts; Tax demand
• Section: 73(1); 75; 77; 78; 68(1); 66; 65(105); 69(1)

Judgement Text

"1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Tax Appeal No.07 of 2020 …… Commissioner of Central G.S.T & Central Excise, Jamshedpur --- Appellant Versus M/s TataSteel Ltd., Growth Shop, Sariakela Kharsawan --- Respondent With Tax Appeal No.09 of 2020 Tata Steel Ltd. (Growth Shop), Gamharia Sariakela Kharsawan --- Appellant Versus Commissioner, Central Excise and Service Tax, Jamshedpur---Respondent --- CORAM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Roshan --- For the Appellants : M/s Amit Kumar, Ashish Kr. Shekhar, Advocate [T.A07/2020] Dr. Sameer Chakraborty, Sr. Advocate, Abhijeet Biswash, Nitin Kr. Pasari, Advocates [T.A09/2020] For the Respondents: M/s Dr. Sameer Chakraborty, Sr. Advocate, Abhijeet Biswash, Nitin Kr. Pasari, Advocates [T.A 07/2020] M/s P.A.S.Pati, Advocate[T.A09/2020] CAVon 05.07.2023 Delivered on 11.12.2023 J U D G M E N T Per Deepak Roshan, J: Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Since both these appeals arise out of same impugned order, as such, both are heard together and being disposed of by this common judgment. The present appeals have been preferred by the Revenue and Tata Steel Ltd. (“TSL”, in short), being aggrieved to the respective extents stated in the respective memo of appeals, against the Final Order No. FO/76176/2019 dated August 29, 2019 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, East Regional Bench, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as “CESTAT”) in 2 Service Tax Appeal No. 372 of 2011; whereby the learned CESTAT while partly allowing the appeal of TSL against the Order-in-Original No. 16/ST/Commissioner/2011 dated May 30, 2011, passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Jamshedpur (in short, “the Commissioner”), the said order, as regards demand of service tax on Tata Steel’s Growth Shop Unit (in short, “TGS”) for the normal period of limitation has been confirmed and the matter has been remanded to the adjudicating authority for working out the liability, if any, for the said normal period. TSL is aggrieved by the confirmation of tax demand for the normal period; whereas the Revenue is aggrieved by the Tribunal holding that the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked in the instant case and, consequently, the demand of tax cannot be raised beyond the normal period. For the sake of convenience, the reference to facts is made herein from the memo of appeal of TSL; T.A. No. 09/2020. 3. The brief fact of the case is that M/S Tata Steel Ltd. is a company and is primarily engaged in manufacturing of iron and steel. By virtue of such registration, it is an artificial juristic entity. It has a number of divisions which are engaged in different activities. Some of the prominent divisions of TSL in India are as follows: (a) Steel Division: It is engaged in the manufacture and sale/export of various kind of steel products like flat products and long products. The steel works is situated in Jamshedpur, in the district of East Singbhum. This division also has a manufacturing unit in Gamharia in the district of Saraikela-Kharsawan in Jharkhand, which is engaged in manufacture and sale of heavy 3 machineries and equipment’s and is known as TGS (Tata Growth Shop). The captive mines of coal and iron ore also comes under this division. (b) The Ferro Alloys & Manganese Division (FAMD): It is engaged in mining and sale of chrome ore and manganese ore as well as sale/export of Ferro alloys and Ferro chrome products. The manganese and chrome ore mines under this division are located in Orissa. (c) Tubes Division: It is engaged in manufacturing pipes and tubes in Jamshedpur. (d) Bearing Division: It is engaged in manufacturing bearing products in Kharagpur in the State of West Bengal. (e) Wire Division, Mumbai. 4. TGS is a profit center of Steel Division of TSL and is engaged in the manufacture of heavy machineries and equipments. It is registered under the Central Excise Act, 1944 for the said purpose. The goods are manufactured not only to meet the internal requirements of TSL (arising out of its various expansion and growth projects), but also for the purpose of sale to outside parties. TGS is also registered as service provider for the purpose of service tax as it is engaged in rendering taxable services like erection, installation and commissioning service and repair and maintenance service to external customers to whom it sells machineries and equipments. The Steelworks of TSL is also registered separately for the purpose of central excise and service tax, in accordance with the statutory requirement specified in Rule 9 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and Rule 4(3A) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, respectively. The turnover, income, assets, liabilities, etc., of TGS is not reflected in a separate profit and loss account and balance sheet but are part of the 4 consolidated figure of Annual Accounts of TSL. TGS does not also file any separate return under the Income Tax Act, 1961.TSL being a limited company is required to prepare its Annual Accounts strictly in accordance with Schedule VI to the Companies Act, 1956. The said Annual Audited Accounts, which are presented to the shareholders, as also to the Government authorities, including, inter alia, Income Tax, Sales Tax and Excise authorities, reflect the consolidated figures of the affairs of the company, as a whole, in respect of all its divisions, including TGS, including the company’s Profit and Loss Account. TGS clears the goods from its factory in CKD/SKD form and pays excise duty accordingly. TGS engages sub-contractors to execute the job of erection and installation of the machineries and equipments supplied to its customers and to the Steelworks. Such sub-contractors perform the job in the premises of customers and the Steelworks. The sub-contractors charges and TGS reimburses them the service tax paid on such services. 5. During the material period TGS issued separate invoices for the services rendered and charged service tax with reference to the services rendered by the sub-contractors at customer’s premises. However, it did not charge any service tax in respect of the services rendered in the premises of TSL’s Steelworks. The specific case of the petitioner is that TGS and the Steelworks are part of the same company i.e., TSL. During the material period TGS, as a “manufacturer”, paid excise duty on clearance of goods to both the Steelworks of TSL as well as to outside parties. As a service provider, however, it paid service tax with respect to the services rendered by it to outside parties. TGS availed CENVAT credit of the service tax reimbursed to the contractors for the purposes of 5 discharging its service tax and central excise liability. In order to evaluate the technical competency of TGS (which is a profit center of TSL’s Steel Division) vis- à-vis other vendors with whom TSL was transacting to meet the requirement of its various growth projects, TSL decided to make TGS participate in the bidding of tender like any other vendor. If TGS qualified in the bidding, it receives a purchase order for the supply of goods and services from TSL. Further, TGS has a separate bank account in which it received money every day from TSL. This arrangement is towards reduction in the interest cost; rather than receipt against particular transaction between TSL and TGS. This transfer of money is subsequently adjusted by TGS in its books of account for capturing the proper cost of transaction of supply of goods and services to TSL. 6. By a show cause notice dated October 8, 2010, the Commissioner called upon TSL to show cause as to why service tax (along with education cess, secondary & higher education cess) amounting to Rs. 1,74,65,320/- should not be recovered from it under the Proviso to Section 73(1) of the Act, along with interest thereon under Section 75 of the Act and as to why separate penalties should not be imposed upon TGS under the provisions of Sections 77 and 78 of the Act on the allegation that TGS had provided, during the period April 1, 2005 to March 31, 2010, the taxable services of “commissioning & installation” and “maintenance or repair” to TSL but had not paid service tax allegedly payable thereon in terms of the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994, as amended (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), and had thereby evaded service tax, which was recoverable from it by invoking the extended period of limitation and had contravened the named provisions of the Act and the Service Tax Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the 6 “said Rules”). TSL submitted its reply dated March 30, 2011 to the show cause notice and after the personal hearing held, an Order-in-Original dated May 30, 2011 (OIO) was passed by the Commissioner; whereby he confirmed the service tax demand of Rs. 1,74,65,320/- against TSL, along with interest thereon. The Commissioner also imposed penalties of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- and Rs. 5,000/-, under Section 78 and Section 77(2) of the Act respectively, upon TSL. 7. Being aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal against the said OIO before the learned CESTAT, being Service Tax Appeal No. 372 of 2011. However, the appeal filed by TSL was partly allowed, inasmuch as, with regards to demand of service tax on Tata Steel’s Growth Shop Unit for the normal period of limitation has been confirmed and the matter has been remanded to the adjudicating authority for working out the liability, if any, for the said normal period. Thus, TSL is aggrieved by the confirmation of tax demand for the normal period; whereas the Revenue is aggrieved by the Tribunal holding that the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked in the instant case. 8. Vide order dated 07.07.2022, this court admitted both these appeals and following questions of law have been formulated: - Tax Appeal No. 07/2020 Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CESTAT, Kolkata has erred by remanding the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for working out liability, if any, for the normal period alone and dropping the demand pertaining to extended period of limitation, despite the fact that M/s Tata Steel Ltd. (Growth Shop) have knowingly suppressed the facts 7 from the department with intent to evade payment of service tax? Tax Appeal No. 09/2020 (a) Whether services rendered by one unit / division of a Company to another unit / division of the same company are \"service\" under the Finance Act, 1994 and exigible to service tax thereunder? (b) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the instant case and on the basis of the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994, services rendered by Tata Growth Shop, a unit of Tata Steel Ltd., to Tata Steel Ltd., amounts to service being rendered to self and hence not liable to service tax under the said Act? (c) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and on the basis of the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994 and the rules framed thereunder, the Tribunal was right in holding that Tata Growth Shop was liable to pay service tax under the Act on services rendered to Tata Steel Ltd. or that the said finding of the Tribunal is ultra vires the Act, arbitrary and perverse? (d) Whether the impugned order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata is a non-speaking and non-reasoned order, having not dealt with specific contentions raised before it and is thus violative of the principle of natural justice, arbitrary, unreasonable and perverse? 9. Mr. Amit Kumar, learned senior standing counsel for the revenue contended that part of the impugned order is illegal and is vitiated, in as much as, the learned CESTAT has erred in remanding the matter to the adjudicating authority for working out liability, if any, for the normal period alone and dropping the demand pertaining to extended period of limitation, despite the fact that M/s. Tata Steels Limited (growth shop) have knowingly suppressed the fact from the department with intent to evade payment of service tax. He further submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in observing that there is no specific allegation of suppression, fraud etc. whereas it has been 8 clearly alleged in the show cause notice that the Assessees were aware that the services provided by them where liable to service tax and by not declaring such fact to the department they have certainly suppressed the facts with intent to evade payment of service tax and such suppression, was only after investigation in this case by the department, was noticed. He contended that the learned tribunal should have appreciated the fact that M/s. Tata Steels Limited was not paying service tax though CENVAT credit on input service was being availed by them and such availment was conscious administrative decision of the company, but with the intent to evade payment of tax, they have suppressed those facts from the department, accordingly the learned CESTAT should not have deleted the penalty. 10. Dr. Sameer Chakraborty, learned Sr. counsel for the Assessee made following submissions: (a) Both in the show cause notice and the OIO passed by the Commissioner, TGS has been referred to as a unit of TSL. Both in the show cause notice (“SCN”), the noticee and in the order the addressee to whom the SCN and the purported order were sent to is “M/s Tata Steel Limited (Growth Shop)”. It is thus conclusive that TGS is a unit of TSL and hence, since there cannot be any service rendered to oneself under the provisions of the Act, the service rendered by TGS, a division/unit of TSL, a company, incorporated or within the meaning of the Companies Act, is not and cannot be said to be a service provided or to be provided to a person by another person, within the meaning of Section 65(105) of the Act read with Section 66 thereof. (b) The distinction made that for the purpose of provision of service tax TSL’s Steelworks and TGS are two different Assessees is misconceived; as there is no provision in law under which service tax is levied providing that two units of a public limited company, registered under the Companies Act, because of being separately registered, as required, under the Service Tax Rules, 1994, can and are to be treated as two distinct 9 persons and services provided by one unit to another shall be deemed to be taxable supply. (c) In fact, in case of TSL itself, in respect of the same units, the same Bench of the Tribunal has held earlier that since one unit of the company does not and cannot render service to another unit of the same company, as the same would amount to service rendered to self, it is not a taxable service under the Act (Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex., 2008 (228) ELT 124 (T-Kol). None of the aforesaid decisions have been challenged by the Revenue before the higher appellate forums i.e., the Hon’ble High Courts or the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Thus, the principle laid down in all these decisions, which have been accepted by the Revenue, has attained finality. (d) TSL was earlier known as Tata Iron & Steel Company Limited (“TISCO”, in short) and after change of such name a new PAN was provided to TSL by the Income Tax Department which, as per the prescribed law, formed a part of the service tax registration number of TSL, replacing the earlier service tax registration number of TISCO. However, TGS which also had its service tax registration based on TISCO PAN; due to oversight and by mistake, did not change the said registration number and accordingly the Service Tax Registration Certificate (ST-2) of TGS continued with the old number containing the PAN of TISCO. As a consequence, thereof, the Service Tax Registration Nos. of TSL and TGS apparently differed. This procedural error has been made a relevant point by the Tribunal to come to the irrational and erroneous conclusion that TGS had rendered services to TSL for a consideration which were exigible under the Act. (e) The fact that TGS and TSL are one and the same entity would be further be evident from: (i) The fact that in the service tax invoices issued by TGS contained the same PAN of both TGS and that of TSL, viz., AAACT2803M. 10 (ii) Payments made by outside parties to TGS for the services rendered by it were by way of account payee cheques/drafts addressed to TSL and not TGS, in spite of the fact that TGS had a separate bank account. As matter of fact, the tribunal has erred in holding TGS and TSL to be different legal entities on the basis of separate excise and service tax registration. (iii) The impugned order being non-reasoned and non- speaking and hence is violative of principles of natural justice and perverse. In passing the impugned order specific contentions of TSL, based on materials and documents on record and decisions of have either not been referred to or perfunctorily dealt. No reason or basis has been disclosed as to why and how the CESTAT came to the conclusion that these specific contentions of TSL which conclusively evidenced that TGS was at all material point of time and still is an unit of TSL and had no independent existence outside the same nor as to how and on what basis, on appreciation of the relevant provisions of the Act, it can be held that there was rendering of service eligible to service tax by one division/unit of a company to the company. In support of his contention, he relied upon several judgments of different Tribunal and submits that all held unanimously that since one unit of the company does not and cannot render service to another unit of the same company, as the same would amount to service rendered to self, it is not a taxable service under the Act. Few rulings are quoted herein below: (i) General Manager, BSNL Cellular Mobile Services v. Commr. of GST & C.Ex.,2019 (25) GSTL 238 (T) (ii) Sahara India Commercial Corporation v. Commr. of C. Ex., 2019 (21) GSTL170 (iii) C.C., C.Ex. & S.T. v. Parker Markwel Industries Pvt. Ltd., 2019 (24) GSTL 42 11 (iv) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd, v. Commissioner of C.Ex., Patna 2007 (8) STR 527 11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the records of the case and the orders passed by the Revenue authorities and the Tribunal; to decide the issues involved in both these appeals the operative portion of the impugned order is extracted hereinbelow; “5. We have considered the rival contentions, have gone through the documents placed on records and have also gone through various decisions relied upon by the Ld. Senior Advocate. From the Perusal of the documents and the explanations filed by the appellant, we note that but for pleading that there was no service recipient rather service is for self, no documentary evidence is furnished for the satisfaction of either the Ld. Commissioner/Adjudicating Authority or before us. We also find that the Adjudicating Authority has given a finding on the contentions of the appellant; that the services rendered by the appellant was for consideration and that in case of orders for executing service, the appellant had subcontracted after making payment for which, the appellant had also taken credit for the Service Tax amount charged. There is also a finding by Ld. Commissioner that the appellant did indeed allot vendor code and ledger to Tata Steel Ltd. by treating the other as its customers on which there is no refutal/rebuttal by the appellant and it is also a part of the record that the services rendered were the results of open bidding/tender where even the appellant amongst others, participated. On being successful, purchase order was placed and the contract came up executed. 6. On considering above discussion by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority, suffice it to say that the appellant has failed to prove that it is the case of ‘Self Service’ but the Revenue has clearly established that there exists service, there is a service provider, there is also a service recipient; and for which the payment has been made. In the backdrop of the above, therefore, we are of the humble opinion that the decisions relied on by the Ld. Senior Advocate are distinguishable. But however, it is a matter of record that the Revenue has come to know of the above 12 facts only during the course of checking of records and not from an independent source and therefore, the same cannot be said to have been suppressed with an intention to evade tax and consequently, the demand cannot be raised beyond of the Normal period. We also find that there is no specific allegation of suppression, fraud, etc, to justify invoking larger period of limitation. In the light of the above, therefore, the demand in so far as the normal period of limitation alone can be sustained, which we hereby do. 7. In the result, the matter is remanded back to the file of the Adjudicating Authority for working out liability, if any, for the normal period alone. Matter is partly allowed and partly remanded on the above terms.” 12. It transpires from perusal of records that TGS is a unit of TSL and therefore, the primary condition precedent for levying service tax under the Act is not satisfied since there cannot be ‘service’ rendered to oneself. Both in the show cause notice and in the OIO, TGS has been referred to as a unit of TSL. Both in the show cause notice (“SCN”) the noticee and in the OIO the addressee to whom it was sent was “M/s Tata Steel Limited (Growth Shop)”. It is thus conclusive that TGS is a unit of TSL and hence, since there cannot be any service rendered to oneself under the provisions of the Act, the service rendered by TGS, a division/unit of TSL, a company, incorporated or within the meaning of the Companies Act, is not and cannot be said to be a service provided or to be provided to a person by another person, within the meaning of Section 65(105) of the Act read with Section 66 thereof. The finding of the learned Tribunal that no documentary evidence was submitted to indicate that the service rendered by TGS to TSL was service to self is patently erroneous and perverse. The documents and materials on record of 13 the proceedings before the CESTAT clearly demolishes this conclusion of the Tribunal. The distinction made by the Tribunal for the purpose of provision of service tax, that TSL’s Steelworks and TGS are two different Assessees, is misconceived. There is no provision in law under which service tax is levied providing that two units of a public limited company, registered under the Companies Act, because of being separately registered, as required, under the Service Tax Rules, 1994, can and are to be treated as two distinct persons and services provided by one unit to another shall be deemed to be taxable supply. In the absence of such specific provision, transaction between two units of the same company cannot be held as ‘service’ rendered by one unit to the other within the meaning of the Act. Two separate service tax registration of the two units is wholly irrelevant in this regard. It is settled law that one unit of the company does not and cannot render service to another unit of the same company, as this would amount to service rendered to self, which is not a taxable service under the Act: The judgments referred by Mr. Chakroborty on the aforesaid issue are squarely applicable to this case so far as the issue that one unit of the company does not and cannot render service to another unit of the same company, as the same would amount to service rendered to self; thus it is not a taxable service under the Act. 13. At this stage, it is also pertinent to mention here that in case of TSL itself, in respect of the same units, the same Bench of the Tribunal has held earlier that since one unit of the company does not and cannot render service to another unit of the same company, as the same would amount to service rendered to self, it is not a taxable service under the Act (Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex., 14 Jamshedpur 2008 (228) ELT 124 (T-Kol)). None of the aforesaid decisions have been challenged by the Revenue before the higher appellate forums (the Hon’ble High Courts or the Hon’ble Supreme Court). Thus, the principle laid down in the decision, which have been accepted by the Revenue, has attained finality. It is a principle, settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court, that it is necessary that judicial precedent is followed and in the event a Bench of the same strength of the Tribunal seeking to differ with the decision of another Bench, the matter has to be referred to the President of the Tribunal for reference to a larger bench for deciding the matter. Without assigning any reason or basis, this judicial principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, has also been violated by the Tribunal in passing the impugned order. In this respect reference may be made to the decisions of CCE, Navi Mumbai Vs Amar Bitumen & Allied Products Pvt. Ltd., 2006 (202) ELT 213 (SC) wherein at para 4, 5 & 6 it has been held as under:- \"4. The tribunal relying upon an earlier decision of another Bench of the Tribunal in Commissioner of Cenral Excise, Calcutta-l v. Bitumen Products (India) [1999 (107) E.L.T. 58 (T)], held that 'Bituminised Hessian based felt' is covered under Chapter Heading 59.09 as contended by the assessee and not under 68.07 as contended by the revenue. 5. Admittedly, no appeal was filed by the revenue against the earlier decision of the Tribunal in Bitumen Products (India)(supra) and the same has become final. 6. This Court in a catena of cases has consistently taken the view that if an earlier order is not appealed against by Revenue and the same has attained finality, then it is not open to the Revenue to accept judgment/order on the same question in the case of one assessee and question its correctness in the case of some other assessees. The Revenue cannot pick and choose.[See : Union of India & Others v. Kaumudini Narayan Dalal & Another [2001 (10) SCC 231]; Collector of Central Excise Pune v. Tata Engineering & Locomotives Co. Ltd [2003 (158) E.L.T. 130 (S.C.)] ; Birla Corporation Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise [2005 (186) E.L.T. 266 (S.C.)]; Jayaswals Neco Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur [2006 (195) E.L.T. 142 (S.C.)], etc.] \" 14. The law is no more res integra that a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 is a single person/entity in the eye of law and cannot reconstitute itself to several legal entities. Divisions/branches thereof cannot have 15 identity different and distinct from the company. Reference in this regard may be made to Section 3(42) of the General Clauses Act, 1897. Further, Section 65(7) of the Act, as amended, defines an “Assessee” to mean “a person liable to pay the Service Tax and includes his agent”. Section 68(1) of the Act requires every “person” providing taxable service to any person to pay service tax at the rate specified in Section 66 in the manner and within the period as prescribed. These provisions make it absolutely clear that an Assessee, except for an individual, has to be a legal person, such as a company or firm, who is liable to pay service tax or who would be providing taxable service. Section 69(1) of the Act requires every “person” liable to pay service tax to get itself registered in the manner prescribed. “Person” herein is also, therefore, a legal entity, which in this case is TSL. A division or branch thereof cannot be a “person” under this provision. TGS therefore has no independent and different existence or identity, irrespective of the fact that it has to get itself separately registered under the provisions of the Act and the Central Excise Act, 1944. Rule 4(3A) of the said Rules provides that an “Assessee” providing taxable service from more than one premises or offices has to obtain separate registration of each premise/office. In the absence of a separate definition of “Assessee”, the definition of “Assessee” as contained in Section 65(7) of the Act would be applicable. So applied, it is further established that the “Assessee” under Rule 4(3A) of the said Rules has also to be an individual or a legal entity, which in the instant case is TSL and not any of its divisions or factories separately, including TGS. The fact that TGS and TSL are one and the same entity would be further evident from the fact that in the service tax invoices issued by TGS contained the 16 same PAN of both TGS and that of TSL, i.e., AAACT2803M. Further, payments made by outside parties to TGS for the services rendered by it were by way of account payee cheques/drafts addressed to TSL and not TGS, in spite of the fact that TGS had a separate bank account. 15. The learned Tribunal has erred in holding TGS and TSL to be different legal entities on the basis of separate excise and service tax registration. As per Central Excise law, a manufacturer (TSL in the instant case) having multiple factories situated in different locations is required to have registration for each such factory. In Jamshedpur, TSL has a number of factories and TGS and Steelworks are amongst them. Therefore, TGS and Steelworks of TSL were registered separately under the Central Excise Rules. Similarly, under the Act and the said Rules an Assessee providing taxable services from more than one premises is required to have separate registration for each of such place provided that there is no provision for centralized billing and accounting for services provided from such different premises. Since TGS is a separate profit center of steel division of TSL, and is rendering services from its premises, therefore TSL had got a separate registration for TGS for the purpose of service tax. Accordingly, we hold that separate registration of each factory/premises of manufacturer/service provider does not and cannot render each one of such factory/premises of the manufacturer/service provider a separate legal entity. In fact, there is no such provision in either the Central Excise Act or the Act or in any other law of the land. 16. In the OIO it appears that both TGS and TSL during the personal hearing before him agreed with the Commissioner that in the eye of Central Excise 17 and Service Tax laws TGS and TSL are separate entities having separate service tax and central excise registration and that if a service tax provider avails CENVAT credit of service tax paid on input services there would be liability upon it to make payment of service tax on the output services rendered, is completely misplaced. It is well settled that credit of input service is to be utilized for payment of service tax towards, inter alia, output service. There is, or can be no dispute with this legal position and this is what the representatives of TGS and TSL “agreed” with, during the course of personal hearing. Further, it is also settled legal position that under the Central Excise law there is no requirement of one-to-one correlation between the credits availed in respect of the input and input service and utilization thereof in payment of central excise duty or service tax in respect of dutiable goods manufactured and cleared and/or output service rendered. Hence, TGS had rightly availed the subject CENVAT credits of service tax paid, without there being any concomitant obligation to make payment of service tax on the services rendered to another unit of TSL. Contrary finding of the Tribunal is also erroneous and untenable. 17. At the cost of repetition, we once again reiterate that separate registration of each factory/premises of manufacturer/service provider does not and cannot render each one of such factory/premises of the manufacturer/service provider a separate legal entity. 18. In view of the aforesaid discussions and finding the questions of law raised by the Assessee is decided in their favour. Consequently, the Department’s appeal is unsustainable and is rejected. The impugned order of the CESTAT being contrary to law and unsustainable in its entirety; the issue of whether the normal 18 period or the extended period of limitation is sustainable in the instant case, is irrelevant. However, in any event, the uncontroverted facts on record as set out and contained in TSL’s appeal petition conclusively evidences that there has been no suppression of any material fact by TSL in the instant case and that the misconceived grounds contained in the Department’s appeal do not satisfy the tests laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which have to be satisfied for invocation of the extended period of limitation. In this regard reference be made to the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Uniworth Textiles Ltd. Vs. CCE, Raipur {2013 (288) ELT 161 (SC), paras 12-26}. 19. As a result, the Assessee’s Appeal is allowed and the Revenue’s Appeal is dismissed. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J) (Deepak Roshan, J) Jharkhand High Court Dated/ 11 /12 / 2023 Amardeep/AFR "