9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 303X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dispute per se and hence, such scheme cannot have the effect of depriving a bonafide litigant of its otherwise eligible refund. Both the authorities have misdirected in taking recourse Section 130 (2) ibid, which is, as seriously contended by the learned Consultant, is not applicable - the impugned order is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the Adjudicating Authority to pass a fresh order in accordance with law, after affording reasonable opportunity to the appellant but, without going into the provisions of SVLDR Scheme since, the litigation is settled in so far as the scheme is concerned in respect of the appellant - appeal allowed by way of remand. - E/40348 of 2021-SM - FINAL ORDER No. 40044 /2022 - Dated:- 4-2-2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 010 (ST) dated 22.01.2010 was passed confirming the above demand. The same was sustained by the first appellate authority against which an appeal was filed before CESTAT. Vide Miscellaneous Order CESTAT directed the appellant to deposit ₹ 10.00 Lakhs as pre-deposit and Final Order was also passed against which the appellant preferred appeal before the Hon ble High Court of Judicature of Madras. During the pendency of its appeal in CAN before the Hon ble High Court, the appellant choses to avail the benefit of Sabka Viswas Dispute (Legacy) Resolution Scheme (SVLDRS) which was introduced then and accordingly withdrew its appeal and filed application under SVLDRS-1 for settlement of its dispute. From its application it was no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le words, clearly, the appeal before CESTAT was on account of input services tax credit and in terms of the directions of CESTAT the predeposit was made under the head Excise Duty and the same was accepted by the Revenue. Only when the benefit of scheme was being availed and consequently refund was claimed, the revenue took an unusual step of denying the same on the ground that the dispute related to service tax whereas the predeposit was made under the head Excise Duty and hence the same could not be considered for refund. This had the effect of cutting both ways, i.e., loose the payment of predeposit made as also the additional 30% tax in terms of SVLDRS, which is not the purpose or object of any dispute resolution scheme introduced ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
