https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=404322 A single declaration under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 was held sufficient where one consolidated appeal arose from one common adjudication order covering multiple show cause notices. Rule 3(2) was construed with the definition of a "case" and the Scheme's object of reducing litigation, while Rule 6A of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 supported maintainability of one appeal against one order. Filing separate declarations was treated as procedural, not a substantive eligibility requirement, and a hyper-technical objection could not defeat relief when the statutory conditions were otherwise met and no prejudice to Revenue was shown. The rejection was set aside and discharge certificate issuance directed on compliance with remaining conditions. en-us Thu, 18 Feb 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 15 Jun 2021 15:24:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=404322 A single declaration under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 was held sufficient where one consolidated appeal arose from one common adjudication order covering multiple show cause notices. Rule 3(2) was construed with the definition of a "case" and the Scheme's object of reducing litigation, while Rule 6A of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 supported maintainability of one appeal against one order. Filing separate declarations was treated as procedural, not a substantive eligibility requirement, and a hyper-technical objection could not defeat relief when the statutory conditions were otherwise met and no prejudice to Revenue was shown. The rejection was set aside and discharge certificate issuance directed on compliance with remaining conditions. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 18 Feb 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=404322