9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 629X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... put on notice, prior to 01.03.2013. The petitioner was intimated by the Range Officer, Tiruppur Range, on 07.03.2013. The petitioner's consistent case is that the Range Officer is not the competent authority to initiate any audit. Nevertheless, a reading of the impugned order shows that the communication, dated 07.03.2013 is only an intimation, probably, with a view to intimate the petitioner that they have to register themselves under the Service Tax regime and pay taxes. The petitioner did not ignore the communication of the Range Officer, but accepted the same with utmost seriousness. This is manifest by the petitioner's representation dated 08.03.2013, addressed to the competent authority, namely, the Superintendent of Central Excise, and the contents of the same have been elaborately set-out in the preceding paragraphs of this order, which clearly show the bona fides of the petitioner. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation to hold that as on the date when the application was filed by the petitioner, there was no audit as against the petitioner. - Even assuming that there was an audit with M/s.Shobika Impex Private Limited, such audit was not put on notice to the petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , failing which, action will be taken against the petitioner under the Service Tax Law. 4. On receipt of this communication, the petitioner, on 08.03.2013, submitted a detailed representation to the Jurisdictional Officer, who is the competent authority, namely, the Superintendent of Central Excise, Tiruppur Range-III, Tiruppur, wherein it was stated that the petitioner / company is engaged in the construction of residential houses on contract basis to its customers, which are exempted from the payment of service tax, as the concern is not engaged in the construction of more than one house at any site / location and they are not engaged in the construction activities in any residential complex. Further, it is stated that they had undertaken an industrial construction activity at M/s.Shobika Impex Private Limited, Karur, with the activities of construction spread over the years 2008-2009 to 2012-2013 and the first payment of ₹ 3,00,000/- was received during 2008-09. Further, the petitioner stated that no formal contract was entered into with M/s.Shobika Impex Private Limited and they paid the amounts at regular intervals as required by the petitioner. Further the petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter dated 07.03.2013, has been mentioned. Nevertheless, there was a proposal made to the petitioner calling upon them to explain as to why a sum of ₹ 3,56,628/- should not be recovered in terms of proviso to Section 73 (1) of the Finance Act, 1994, and as to why interest and late fee should not to be demanded and penalty should not be imposed. 6. The petitioner submitted an interim reply, dated 18.09.2013, stating that they admit the tax liability, which was admitted by them in their letter, dated 08.03.2013. However, since they have proposed to avail VCES and being eligible to avail the benefit of the scheme, since there is no enquiry / audit objection, or any action whatsoever has been pending against the petitioner, as on 01.03.2013, the request to the show cause notice has to be kept in abeyance. Thereupon, on 24.12.2013, which is well before the cut off date, the petitioner filed a declaration under VCES, wherein the petitioner stated that, to the best of their knowledge, no investigation / enquiry has been intimated against the petitioner in respect of the service tax dues declared in the VCES declaration. Therefore, the petitioner requested that their application un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n under the VCES, 2013. In the light of the rejection, the show cause notice, dated 31.07.2013 issued by the Commissioner was taken-up for adjudication and by referring to the petitioner's letters, dated 18.03.2013 and 18.09.2013, wherein the petitioner requested for the show cause notice to be kept in abeyance, the Authority proceeded to consider the matter on merits and accordingly, confirmed the order in the show cause notice, by order, dated 25.04.2014. This order is impugned in Writ Petition No.29929 of 2014. As against the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) and the said appeal is pending. That apart, the petitioner filed an appeal to the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) against the order, dated 14.03.2014, rejecting the petitioner's application under VCES, 2013. The said appeal was returned as not maintainable, by proceedings, dated 28.05.2014. This order is also impugned in Writ Petition No.29929 of 2014. In the interregnum, the petitioner filed an application before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) not to proceed further, pursuant to the appeal filed, as against the order, dated 25.04.20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or reasons to be recorded in writing, reject such declaration. 13. The application filed under the scheme, which undoubtedly appears to be as that of Samadhan scheme or the Voluntary Disclosure Scheme, the parameters for considering the scheme have been laid down in Clauses (a) and (b) of the scheme, referred to above, which provide for circumstances under which the declaration filed under the VCES 2013 is liable for rejection. The reasons assigned in the impugned order, dated 14.03.2014 is that, an audit has been initiated and therefore, the petitioner's application is rejected. 14. It has to be pointed out that there was no audit initiated/conducted against the petitioner or in the business premises of the petitioner. This has not been disputed by the Department. However, the petitioner would state that an audit was conducted in M/s.Shobika Impex Private Limited and the petitioner had done certain construction activities in the said company and a communication was sent by the Range Officer to the petitioner on 07.03.2013. It has to be further pointed out that the cut-off date is 01.03.2013 and as on the said date, there was no audit objection. Even assuming that M/s.Sho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
