9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (4) TMI 730 - AT - Service TaxVoluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme (VCES) - rejection on the ground that the appellant had adjusted its balance of liability against Cenvat Credit and the appellant had not calculated its liability properly - Held that - The Commissioner (Appeals) has observed that the VCES has no provisions of appeal against the rejection of declaration. It is noted that the Hon ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Barnala Builders & Property Consultants vs. Dy. C.C.E. & S.T., Dera Bassi, 2013 (12) TMI 568 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT has dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn, with liberty to file an appeal - Further, the Tribunal in the case of C.C.E. & S.T., Jaipur vs Vision Freight Solutions India Ltd., 2018 (4) TMI 1467 - CESTAT NEW DELHI has held that as per VCES, there is no bar for utilization of credit up to 31.12.2012. However, the above decisions were not examined by the authorities below for ascertaining the facts as to whether the issues are identical or not. The matter should be examined in the light of the above decision - appeal allowed by way of remand.
Issues:
Appeal against rejection of declaration under Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme (VCES) - Provision of appeal under VCES - Proper calculation of liability - Examination of relevant legal decisions. Analysis: The appellant filed an appeal against the rejection of its declaration under the Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme, 2013 (VCES), concerning tax dues for a specific period. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal, noting that there were no provisions for appeal against such rejections under VCES. However, legal precedents were cited, such as a case from the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court and a Tribunal case, indicating that there might be a possibility for appeal in such situations. The Tribunal emphasized that the authorities below did not adequately consider these legal decisions to determine if the issues were similar. As a result, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter to the adjudicating authority for a fresh decision based on the relevant legal principles and examination of the facts. The key contention revolved around the availability of an appeal mechanism for rejections under VCES and the proper calculation of the appellant's liability. The Commissioner (Appeals) highlighted the absence of specific provisions for appeals in VCES cases. However, the Tribunal referred to legal precedents that suggested the possibility of appealing such rejections. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a thorough examination of the legal decisions and the facts to ensure a fair and just decision in accordance with the law. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for a fresh determination on the merits, emphasizing compliance with legal standards. In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment focused on the procedural aspect of appealing against the rejection of a declaration under VCES and the proper assessment of tax liability. By considering relevant legal decisions and highlighting the need for a comprehensive examination of the facts, the Tribunal aimed to ensure a just and lawful outcome in the case. The remand to the adjudicating authority signified the importance of adhering to legal principles and conducting a thorough analysis before reaching a final decision.
|
