Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Commissioner of Customs And Central Excise, Wardha Versus M/s Cityland Associates, Amravati

2016 (4) TMI 289 - CESTAT MUMBAI

Entitlement for the benefit of VCES Scheme notified under Finance Act, 2013 - Respondent applied for registration, obtained assessee code number and attempted to deposit 50% amount on 31/12/2013 however due to system fault the amount could not be deposited and report is on record which shows that ‘assessee code invalid' - Held that:- it is observed that on 31/12/2013 respondent's bank account in IDBI bank shows credit balance of more than 50% amount which was to be deposited. In view of this, re .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

inst the revenue - Appeal No. ST/86723/15-Mum - Order No. A/86635/16/SMB - Dated:- 17-3-2016 - Ramesh Nair, Member (J) For the Appellant : Shri B KumarIyer, Superintendent (AR) For the Respondent : Shri Jayesh M Gogri, CA ORDER Per Ramesh Nair This Revenue's appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. NGP/EXCUS/000/APP/187/15-16 dated 11/06/2015 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise & Customs, Nagpur wherein Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the Order-in-Original no. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

01.01.2014 the appellant deposited the amount of ₹ 16,49,486/- through two banker's cheque of IDBI Bank in State Bank of India, Amravati Branch. The Adjudicating authority vide letter dated 27/11/2014 communicated to the respondent that since respondent have not paid 50% dues on or before the 31/12/2013 in view of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Teknow Overseas Ltd. vs. the Asst. Commissioner of Service Tax (VCES), Delhi [2014-TIOL-471-HC-DEL-ST], the respondent are not entitle .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nded under any circumstances. In the present case, the respondent has admittedly paid the 50% dues only on 01/01/2014 therefore not complied with the condition of payment of 50% dues on or before 31/12/2013. He submits that Adjudicating authority has correctly followed the ratio of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court judgment therefore Ld. Commissioner (Appeals)'s order is not in consonance with the Hon'ble Delhi High Court judgment in case of Teknow Overseas Ltd. (supra) hence the same is .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the part of the respondent. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides. 6. I find that there is no doubt that as per the VCES Scheme, 2013, 50% of the declared dues is supposed to be deposited on or before 31/12/2013 and there is no provision for extension of that period for deposit. However, in the present case, the respondent undisputedly applied for registration, obtained assessee code number and attempted to deposit 50% amount on 31/12/2013 however due to system fault .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version