9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 1032X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gistered service provider under the category of Works Contract Service (WCS). They have filed declaration in Form VCES-1 under Section 107(1) of Chapter VI of Finance Act, 2013. The appellant had declared tax dues of Rs. 72,61,719/- and also paid 50% of the demand amounting to Rs. 36,30,860/- on various days before 31/12/2013. Thereafter a show-cause notice dt. 27/12/2013 was served on the appellant alleging disqualification envisaged by second proviso to Section 106(1) was attracted and the declaration was liable to be rejected. After following the due process, the Assistant Commissioner vide order dt. 27/01/2014 rejected the declaration under VCES alleging that in the adjudication for the period up to 2007-08, there was a demand of Rs. 1, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cheme and has rightly come to the conclusion that the case of the appellant is not covered by the VCES scheme as there was a demand of Rs. 1,83,849/- as per the Order-in-Original for the year 2007-08 and therefore the appellant has attracted disqualification under second proviso to Section 106(1). 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of material on record, I find that the VCES scheme is part and parcel of Finance Act, 1994 and all the provisions of the Finance Act are applicable to the scheme to the extent of specifically excluded. This exclusion is given in Section 106(2) which reads as under:- (2) Where a declaration has been made by a person against whom,- (a) an inquiry or investigation in respect of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n envisaged by second proviso to Section 106(1) of the Act. Further I find that the decision relied upon by the learned consultant for the appellant in the case of Frankfin Aviation Services P. Ltd. is not directly applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case because in the present case the appellant attracts disqualification because demand was confirmed against him under the WCS for the period 2007-08 which clearly covered under Section 106(2) of the Finance Act, 2013. Further the learned counsel has also brought certain clarification on record issued by the CBEC but according to me, the case is not covered by the clarification issued by the CBEC subsequent to the issuance of the scheme. In view of my discussion above, I do not f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
