TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1577X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T/21577/2015 - A/31784/2017 - Dated:- 26-10-2017 - Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member(Judicial) Sri B. Venugopal, Advocate for the Appellant. Shri Arun Kumar, Dy. Commissioner/AR for the Respondent. [Order per: Mr. M.V. Ravindran] 1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No.HYD-EXCUS-002-APP-006-15-16, dated 30.04.2015. 2. Heard both sides and perused records. 3. On perusal of records, it transpires that the issue is regarding rejection of Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme (VCES), 2013 and declaration made by the appellant Aggrieved by the order of the designated authority, an appeal was preferred before the first appellate authority. The first appellate authority in the order impugned, has held that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pon the recent decision of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Nizam Ladji Vs. CCE C, Goa final order No.A/89595/17/SMB, dated 08.09.2017. On merits, it is his further submission that since the amount payable under VCES 2013 was not paid before end of such VCES, both lower authorities have correctly rejected the claim of the appellant. 6. On careful consideration of the submissions made, there are two points that arise for decision of this Bench (1) whether the appeal relies upon before the Tribunal against rejection of VCES declaration 2013 or otherwise and (2) whether on merits both the lower authorities were correct in holding that appellant has not discharged the VCES application for making payment to the Govt. of India withi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 08.09.2017 is non-est, needs to be disordered for deciding the issue. Accordingly, hold that rejection of VCES is contestable before Tribunal, however the rejection of VCES is appropriate in the case in hand as on the facts of the case, I find that the lower authorities and more specifically the first appellate authority has recorded detailed findings as to why he has rejected the appeal against rejection of VCES declaration filed by the applicant, which in my view is correct and concur. The relevant paras 6.1 and 6.2 are reproduced: 6.1 It is seen that the lower authority rejected the VCES application of the appellant on the ground that 50% of tax dues declared have not paid before 31.12.2013 and submission of non valid instrument i.e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he department is a valid document for the purpose of payment of 50% of service tax. But, on close observation and meticulous examination of the above rule, it is understood that the cheque must be presented to the bank not to the department and it is only an instrument (no in liquid form of money) of amount to be deposited in bank for payment of tax towards certain applicable account head. 1.2 To arrive at the clarity for applicability to the instant case, it is also pertinent to examine Section 107 (3) of the Finance Act, 201 3: Section 107 (3) The declarant shall, on or before the 31 st day of December, 2013 pay not less than fifty percent of the tax dues so declared under sub section (l) and submit proof of such payment to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
