9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 1036X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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, Central Excise, Rohtak wherein the adjudicating authority has confirmed the demand of short paid Service Tax of Rs. 8,77,082/- along with interest as applicable and imposed penalty under Section 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 3. In the present appeal, the main ground of the appellant is that they had deposited Rs. 8,77,082/- under Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme (VCES) vide form VCES-I. They pleaded that Order-in-Original No. 06/AC/ST/HSR/14-15 dt. 18.09.2004 rejecting their VCES application has not attained finality and acceptance of VCES application is matter of dispute. They ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... com 401 (Mumbai-CESTAT). 4. CCE, Kolkata-I Vs. Krishna Traders vide Final Order NO. A/868/KOL./2007 [2007] 2007 taxmann.com 496 (Kolkata-CESTAT). 5. Ld. AR for the Revenue submits that the order dt. 18.09.2014 had attained finality. He mentioned that the order was appealable as had been held in the judgment of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Barnala Bulders & Property Consultants Vs. Dy. CCE & ST., Dera Bassi. - 2014 (35) STR 65 (P&H) decided on 09.12.2013. He reiterated the findings in the order of ld. Commissioner (Appeals). 6. Heard the parties and perused the records. 7. I find that the factual matrix has been summarized by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in para 2 of his order which is reproduced below:- "(ii) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the order of Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) holding that the Order-in-Original dt. 18.09.2014 had attained finality. The present appeal filed against the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) is against Order-in-Original No. 05/ST/ADC/AJ/2016-17 dt. 31.05.2016. Hence, I agree with the findings of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) that rejection of VCES application cannot be reopened at this stage after more than a year of Order-in-Original rejecting VCES declaration. Since the entire arguments and case laws cited by the appellant are in relation to the Order-in-Original dt. 18.09.2014, which has already attained finality, I do not see the need to deal with the case laws cited by the appellant. The appellant has not made any pleading in their appeal in relati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
