9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 1173X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... est and also proposing to impose penalty which the appellant replied. After adjudication, Order-in-Original dated 28.13.2013 was passed confirming the demand of service tax along with interest and also imposed penalties under sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 and dropped the proposal to impose penalty under section 76. The appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and also appeared for personal hearing. Thereafter, Order-in-Appeal dated 27.8.2013 was passed upholding the confirmation of demand but modified to the extent of deducting the property tax paid by the appellant from the total demand. 3. Meanwhile, the appellant opted to avail the Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme (VCE Scheme) and filed declaration ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issioner (Appeals). He submitted that the present appeal is only an order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) who has rejected the VCES application holding that the appellant's application for VCES declaration cannot be considered as per the norms of the said scheme. The period involved is April 2007 to March 2011. The service of renting of immovable property became taxable with effect from 1.6.2007 and the leviability of tax was given retrospective effect with the amendment brought forth in 2010. That there was much confusion with regard to the levy of immovable property especially on the background of the decision passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High court in the case of Home Solutions Retail Ltd. Vs. Union of India - 2011 (21) STR 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt is not eligible to be considered for the VCES scheme. The Commissioner (Appeals) has observed that since the show cause notice was issued for the period prior to the period covered under the scheme, would make the appellant ineligible to file a declaration under the scheme. Thus, Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order, in this appeal, upheld the rejection of VCES declaration filed by the appellant. As rightly conceded by the Id. counsel for the appellant and also pointed out by the Id. AR, the present appeal not being an appeal against the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) confirming the demand, interest or penalties but only against the rejection of VCES application, I am of the view that the appeal does not have any merit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
