2017 (7) TMI 1036 - AT - Service Tax

Business Auxiliary Service - VCES Scheme - appellant submitted the prescribed declaration before the Punjab National Bank (PNB) and not before the designated authority prescribed under the scheme - Held that - rejection of VCES application cannot be reopened at this stage after more than a year of Order-in-Original rejecting VCES declaration - Since the entire arguments and case laws cited by the appellant are in relation to the Order-in-Original dt. 18.09.2014, which has already attained finality, I do not see the need to deal with the case laws cited by the appellant - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against order of Ld. Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-II), Delhi confirming demand of short paid Service Tax, rejection of Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme (VCES) application, appeal against Order-in-Original No. 05/ST/ADC/AJ/2016-17, finality of Order-in-Original dt. 18.09.2014, reliance on case laws, appealability of orders, grounds for appeal, demand confirmed under Order-in-Original dt. 31.05.2016.

Analysis:

1. The appellant filed an appeal against the impugned order by the Ld. Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-II), Delhi, confirming the demand of short paid Service Tax. The appellant, registered under Business Auxiliary Service, argued that they had deposited the amount under VCES but the application was rejected. The main contention was the rejection of VCES application and its finality.

2. The appellant claimed to have deposited the amount under VCES with Punjab National Bank, submitting the declaration there instead of the designated authority. They argued that the rejection of the VCES request was not a complete order and did not mention appealability. However, the Revenue argued that the order had attained finality and cited relevant case law to support their position.

3. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) summarized the factual matrix related to VCES application and rejection, emphasizing the appealability of such orders. The judgment of the Hon'ble High Court made VCES application orders appealable. The appellant failed to appeal the rejection order within the stipulated time, leading to its finality. The current appeal against the Order-in-Original dt. 31.05.2016 was deemed irrelevant as it did not contest the demand, interest, and penalty imposed.

4. The Tribunal found no merit in the appellant's appeal due to the absence of grounds challenging the demand confirmed under Order-in-Original dt. 31.05.2016. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed based on the lack of substantive arguments against the demand, interest, and penalty imposed. The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the finality of the rejection of the VCES application.

5. In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, emphasizing the importance of timely appeals against rejection orders and the need for substantive grounds to challenge demands in subsequent appeals. The judgment highlighted the significance of following procedural requirements and the implications of not contesting decisions within the prescribed legal framework.