9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (3) TMI 1810 - AT - Service TaxVCES Application - time limitation - whether delay in issuing SCN by the authorities beyond 30 days from the date of filing the VCES application pursuant to Finance Act, 2013 could be rejected as time bar? - Circular dated 08.08.2013. HELD THAT - A harmonious reading of the Finance Act, 2013 and the Circular makes it clear that the Board has issued the clarification to expedite the process of VCES application making it necessary to issue notice within 30 days, if it is proposed/ intended to reject the same. However, the said Circular cannot disturb the upper limit of one year fixed by the legislation as prescribed under Section 111 of the Finance Act, 2013. Hon ble Supreme Court in COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE SERVICE TAX VERSUS ULTRA TECH CEMENT LTD. 2018 (2) TMI 117 - SUPREME COURT observed that in a case there is a conflict between the Circular and the Rule, the Rule should prevail. The appeal is remanded to the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the case on merit afresh - appeal allowed by way of remand.
Issues involved:
Delay in issuing show cause notice (SCN) beyond 30 days from VCES application filing under Finance Act, 2013. Analysis: The appeal was filed by the Revenue against an order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals) concerning the delay in issuing SCN beyond 30 days from the VCES application filing. The main issue was whether such delay could render the notice time-barred. The Revenue argued that the provisions of Section 111 of the Finance Act, 2013, which prescribes a one-year period for issuing notice in case of declaration rejection, should prevail over any circular or clarification. The Revenue cited relevant case laws to support their argument. The Respondent, represented by a Chartered Accountant, contended that as per the Circular issued by the Board, any notice proposing to reject the VCES application should be issued within 30 days from the filing date. Since this condition was not met in the present case, the appeal was rightfully allowed by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in favor of the Respondent. Upon examining the relevant provisions of the Finance Act, 2013 and the Circular issued by the Board, the Tribunal found that while the Circular aimed to expedite the VCES application process by requiring a notice within 30 days for rejection, it could not override the one-year limit set by the legislation under Section 111. Citing a recent Supreme Court judgment, the Tribunal emphasized that in case of conflict between a Circular and a Rule, the Rule should prevail. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was remanded to the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh decision on the merits. The Revenue's appeal was allowed by way of remand.
|
