9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 274X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 13. The similar issue came up before the Honble High Court of Bombay in the case of Pace Setter Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd. [2017 (4) TMI 564 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] wherein on the identical facts the Hon’ble High Court hold that the assessee is entitled to avail the benefit of the scheme. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - Appeal No. ST/50286/2018-SM - Final Order No. 50861/2018 - Dated:- 6-3-2018 - Hon ble Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Shri G.R. Singh, D.R. - for the appellant Shri Varun Gaba, Advocate - for the respondent ORDER Per Ashok Jindal Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order. 2. The facts of the case are that for the period 2004-2008, certain audit objections were raised ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore, the same is not applicable to the facts of this case. 4. On the other hand, the ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent reiterated the findings of the impugned order. 5. Heard both sides. Considered the submissions. 6. The short issue involved in the matter is that whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the provisions of Section 106(1) of Finance Act, 2013 debars the respondent not to take benefit of the scheme or not. Admittedly, for the earlier period, during the course of audit an objection was raised and respondent immediately reversed the Cenvat credit along with interest proceedings against the respondent were closed. The issue raised by the Revenue is that as the order of determination of their ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ow Cause Notice and without issuance of SCN, no order of determination can be made under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994. Further, there is no allegation that pursuant to audit para, proviso to these sub-sections has been invoked against the appellant in respect of the issue of VCES declaration. What is important to note is the admittance of Adjudicating Authority that the audit para similar to the issue of VCES declaration stands closed upon payment of entire dues by the appellant along with interest . Thus, it is an admitted position that no Show Cause Notice has been issued to the appellant in respect of the relevant audit para. When no Show Cause Notice has been issued to the appellant, there can be no order of determination as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it petition. The ratio of this judgement is squarely applicable to the instant case. Further, as discussed above, there is no other objection barring the similarity of the issue of VCES declaration to an earlier audit para, which according to the aforecited judgement, is not sustainable. To sum up, I hold that (a) the audit para is not an order of determination under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 (b) Section 106(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 is not invocable in the instant case and (c) the VCES declaration of appellant cannot be rejected on the only ground that the VCES declaration has been filed on an issue which is similar to the issue of an earlier audit para. In the light of these findings, the CVES declaration of appellant is no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
