9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 1036X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7-SM[BR] - Dated:- 29-6-2017 - Mr. Devender Singh, Member (Technical) Sh. Sachin Goyal, CA for the Appellant Sh. A.K. Soni, AR for the Respondent ORDER Per : Devender Singh The appellant has filed this appeal against the impugned order dt. 20.02.2017 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-II), Delhi. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is proprietor of M/s Pawan Confectionery, Bhiwani and is registered with the Central Excise and Service Tax Department under the category of Business Auxiliary Service . The appeal before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) was filed against the Order-in-Original No.05/ST/ADC/AJ/2016-17 dt. 31.05.2016 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Centr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e and VCES scheme did not mention what to do in case of any type of mistake. Hence, the order dt. 18.09.2014 has not attained finality. It was also not mentioned in the said order dt. 18.09.2014 whether it was an appealable order. They have cited following case laws in their support:- 1. CCE, Wardha Vs. Cityland Associates vide Final Order No.A/86635/2016/SMB [2016] 69 taxmann.come 176 (Mumbai-CESTAT) 2. Abdos Trading Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. CCE, Calcutta-IV vide Final Order No.A-176/Kol/2002. 3. Cadila pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. CCE, Ahmedabad-III vide Final Order No.A/1055/WZB/2005-CIV [2005] 2005 taxmann.com 401 (Mumbai-CESTAT). 4. CCE, Kolkata-I Vs. Krishna Traders vide Final Order NO. A/868/KOL./2007 [2007] 2007 ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er, the tax dues declared by the appellant has been adjudicated vide impugned O-I-O dt. 31.05.2016 as detailed in para 1 above. Against this O-I-O, the appellant has filed the instant appeal. I also find that the orders relating to VCES applications were made appealable vide judgment of Hon ble High Court of Punjab Haryana in the case of Barnala Bulders Property Consultants Vs. Dy. CCE ST., Dera Bassi (supra). The Order-in-Original which was delivered on 18.09.2014 was therefore an appealable order and the appellant clearly did not prefer any appeal against the said order even after one year had passed. Hence, I find no infirmity in the order of Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) holding that the Order-in-Original dt. 18.09.2014 ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
