9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (11) TMI 1577 - AT - Service TaxMaintainability of appeal - VCES - whether the appeal relies upon before the Tribunal against rejection of VCES declaration 2013 or otherwise? - Held that - Hon ble High Court of Madras in the case of Narasimha Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Coimbatore 2015(06)LCX 0020 has settled the law and held that appeal provision under section 85 & 86 of Finance Act 1994 will apply to the proceedings arising out of VCES declaration - the rejection of VCES is contestable before Tribunal however the rejection of VCES is appropriate - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
Issues:
1. Rejection of Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme (VCES), 2013 declaration. 2. Appeal against rejection of VCES declaration. 3. Compliance with payment conditions under VCES. Analysis: 1. The appeal challenged the rejection of VCES declaration by the first appellate authority. The appellant claimed to have submitted the declaration along with a cheque for the required amount, which was initially accepted by the department. However, the cheque was later returned, instructing the appellant to deposit it in a designated bank. The appellant argued that the rejection of the refund claim was incorrect, citing a previous decision. The department contended that the rejection was valid as the amount was not paid before the VCES deadline. The Tribunal examined whether the rejection was justified based on payment compliance. 2. The Tribunal deliberated on the maintainability of the appeal against the rejection of VCES declaration. Referring to a Mumbai Tribunal decision, the department argued that since there was no specific provision for appeal against VCES rejection, the appeal was not maintainable. However, the Tribunal disagreed, citing a High Court judgment and previous Tribunal rulings that established the applicability of appeal provisions in such cases. The Tribunal overruled the previous decision and held that the rejection of VCES could be contested before the Tribunal. 3. The Tribunal analyzed the payment conditions under VCES and the appellant's argument regarding the validity of the cheque as a payment instrument. The Tribunal referred to relevant rules and provisions to determine the correct interpretation. It concluded that the cheque should have been presented to the designated bank, not the department, for payment. The Tribunal emphasized the requirement to submit proof of payment to the designated authority and upheld the first appellate authority's decision to reject the appeal against the VCES declaration rejection. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the reasoned order and upheld the rejection of the appeal. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the rejection of the VCES declaration appeal, emphasizing the importance of compliance with payment conditions and proper interpretation of payment rules under VCES. The decision clarified the appeal provisions applicable to VCES rejections and highlighted the necessity for adherence to procedural requirements in such cases.
|
