9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (9) TMI 1672 - HC - Service TaxVoluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme (VCES) - Right to appeal - CESTAT dismissed the appeal on the ground that VCES being a self contained code under Finance Act, 2013 without any appeal provision in the scheme and that the appeal is not maintainable. Held that - The issue decided in the case of Narasimha Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.(Appeals), Coimbatore, 2015 (6) TMI 787 - MADRAS HIGH COURT where the Madras High Court, by specific observation, dismissed the appeal on the ground that there is no remedy of appeal in the scheme would be giving unfettered power to the authority and same is not acceptable. There is no reason to adopt a different approach and view than the approach and view adopted by Madras High Court. - The CESTAT directed to hear the appeal afresh and pass appropriate orders on merit of the appeal. Decided in favor of assessee.
Issues:
1. Applicability of Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme ('VCES'). 2. Dismissal of appeal by the appellate tribunal due to absence of appeal provision in the VCES. 3. Interpretation of the statutory scheme in relation to appeal provisions. 4. Comparison with judgments of Madras High Court and Punjab & Haryana High Court. 5. Analysis of the judgment and decision of the Bombay High Court. Issue 1: Applicability of VCES The appellant voluntarily subjected himself to the 'Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme' (VCES) which was introduced by the Central Government. The appellant, engaged in providing taxable services, received a notice directing payment against unpaid taxes under the scheme. The appellant's enterprise, M/s. Raj Electrical Engineering Works, had service tax registration. The dispute arose when the adjudicating authority confirmed the tax demand and imposed a penalty under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994. Issue 2: Dismissal of Appeal The appellant's appeal before the appellate tribunal was dismissed on the grounds that the VCES was considered a self-contained code under the Finance Act, 2013, without any specific appeal provision within the scheme. The appellant argued that the dismissal based on the absence of appeal provision was unsustainable. The appellant contended that even if the scheme did not include an appeal provision, the basic Act itself provided for an appeal remedy, and the tribunal should not have dismissed the appeal solely on this ground. Issue 3: Interpretation of Statutory Scheme The appellant relied on the judgment of the Madras High Court in a similar matter, where it was observed that the absence of an appeal provision in the scheme would grant unfettered power to the authority, which was deemed unacceptable. The appellant also referred to a judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, which supported the view taken by the Madras High Court. The High Court analyzed these judgments and concluded that the absence of an appeal provision in the scheme did not preclude the availability of appeal remedies under the basic Act. Issue 4: Comparison with Previous Judgments The High Court compared the approach and views of the Madras High Court and the Punjab & Haryana High Court with the present matter. It was noted that both the Madras and Punjab & Haryana High Courts had held that the absence of an appeal provision in the scheme did not prevent the application of appeal provisions under the basic Act. The High Court found no reason to deviate from this established legal position. Issue 5: Analysis of the Judgment After considering the arguments and precedents, the High Court allowed the appeal. The impugned order of the appellate tribunal was quashed and set aside. The High Court directed the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal to hear the appeal afresh and pass appropriate orders on the merit of the appeal as quickly as possible. The High Court's decision was based on the interpretation of the statutory scheme and the principles of appeal provisions under the basic Act, emphasizing the importance of providing recourse to aggrieved parties affected by adverse decisions.
|
