9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 1001X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellants. Therefore the case does not fall under the VCES Scheme as per Section 106 (2) of Finance Act, 2013. Accordingly, the adjudication order was passed whereby the adjudicating authority dropped all the proceedings initiated under notice dt. 28.1.2014 and accepted the VCES declaration. Being aggrieved by the said order the Revenue filed appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals), who set aside the aforesaid order and allowed the appeal of the Revenue therefore the appellants are before us. 2. Shri Gajendra Jain, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant at the outset submits that as per the name of the appellants, it can be seen that none of the appellant is M/s. Marvel Realtors. All the appellants are different entities t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant therefore the inquiry was initiated against the appellant and the same was pending before 1.3.2013. 4. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. We find that the limited issue to be decided is that the letter dt. 28.8.2012 issued to M/s. Marvel Realtors can be considered as initiation of the inquiry contemplated under Section 106 of the Act. We find that all the appellants are private limited company and partnership firm in different names. Therefore the letter addressed to the M/s. Marvel Realtors cannot be considered as service of this letter to all the appellants. Even though the letter was issued, on this technical lapse on the part of the Revenue it cannot be said that the inquiry contemplated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssued at S. No. 4 of the circular No. 169/4/2013-ST, dated 13.5.2013, as regards the scope of section 106 (2) (a) of the Finance Act, 2013, wherein it has been clarified that the provision of section 106 (2)(a)(iii) shall be attracted only in such cases where accounts, documents or other evidence are requisitioned by the authorized officer from the declarant under the authority of a statutory provision. A communication of the nature as mentioned in the previous column would not attract the provision of section 106 (2)(a) even though the authority of section 14 of the Central Excise Act may have been quoted therein. The Board circular No. 174/9/2013-ST dated 25/11/2013 3 Whether benefit of VCES would be available in cases where documents ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case, the issue is different and therefore the judgments is not applicable in the fact of the present case. In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered view that in light of Board instruction, inquiry initiated by the DGCEI in form of letter dated 19/2/2013 cannot be considered as the inquiry prescribed under Section 106(2)(a) of Finance Act, 2013. Therefore the impugned orders rejecting the declaration of the appellant are not sustainable. The impugned orders are set aside and appeals are allowed." In the facts of the present case also the information sought is of roving nature for the reason that the similar information was asked from more than one assessee and the same is not specific in relation to any particular assessee. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
