2018 (5) TMI 26 - AT - Service Tax

Stay order of impugned order - jurisdiction of ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in rejection of VCES application - time limitation - Circular dated 8-8-2013 - Held that - the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has not exceeded jurisdiction conferred in law on him but decided the issue on the basis of internal circular issued by the Board to implement the provision of VCES, 2013 declared under the Finance Act, 2013 - Revenue s stay application being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of time-limit for proposing rejection of VCES application.
2. Relevance of internal circular in decision-making.
3. Jurisdiction of the Commissioner (Appeals) in VCES cases.

Analysis:
1. The first issue in this case revolves around the interpretation of the time-limit for proposing rejection of the VCES application. The Revenue sought a stay order on the ground that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in holding the rejection of VCES as bad in law due to a delay in issuing the rejection notice. The Revenue argued that Section 106 of the Finance Act, 2013 does not prescribe a specific time-limit for proposing rejection if the show cause notice was issued within time. The Commissioner (Appeals) had relied on a circular requiring the notice to be issued within 30 days, which the Revenue contended as unsustainable in law.

2. The second issue concerns the relevance of the internal circular in decision-making. The Commissioner (Appeals) based their decision on an internal circular issued by the Board to implement the provisions of VCES, 2013 under the Finance Act, 2013. The Revenue argued that the observation regarding the time-limit for issuing the notice was unsustainable in law, emphasizing the importance of statutory provisions over internal circulars in such matters.

3. The final issue addresses the jurisdiction of the Commissioner (Appeals) in VCES cases. The Commissioner (Appeals) was found to have acted within the jurisdiction conferred by law and decided the issue based on the internal circular issued by the Board for implementing the VCES provisions. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's stay application, noting its lack of merit. The appeal was scheduled to be heard in due course, indicating that the Commissioner's decision was upheld regarding the rejection of VCES application.

In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the importance of statutory provisions, the interpretation of time-limits, and the jurisdiction of the Commissioner (Appeals) in VCES cases. The Tribunal's decision to dismiss the Revenue's stay application emphasized the adherence to legal principles and internal circulars in resolving disputes related to VCES applications.