9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 990X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dent ORDER Per: S. K. Mohanty This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 15.02.2017 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Raipur. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a manufacturer of sponge iron falling under Chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellant avails the services of Goods Transport Agencies and discharge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de the impugned order, wherein duty demand of Rs. 26,14,844/- was confirmed against the appellant. Besides, penalties were also imposed under Section 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. The Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that while computing the service tax liability for the period August 2012 to December 2012, the appellant had mistakenly applied the rate of tax at 10%, in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... chno Concept India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Deputy Commr. Of Service Tax, Delhi-I - 2016 (44) STR 247 (Del.) to state that since there is no provisions exist in the VCES Scheme, to correct the error in the declaration, rejection of the VCES application and confirmation of the adjudged demand is in conformity with the statutory provisions. 4. Heard both sides and perused the records. 5. It is an admitted fac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of the adjudged demand. Further, it is not the case of Revenue that the appellant otherwise is not entitled for availing the benefits contained in the VCES Scheme. Thus, denial of the benefits contained therein for a technical lapse is not proper and justified. 6. Therefore, I do not find any merits in the impugned order passed by Ld. Adjudicating Authority. Accordingly, after setting aside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
