https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783171 CESTAT allowed the appeal, holding the appellant eligible for benefit under the VCES. It ruled that service tax deposited prior to enactment of the scheme could be treated as payment towards "tax dues" under VCES when read with its substantive, beneficial object. Rejecting the Revenue's contention that only payments made after acknowledgment of declaration under section 107 qualify, the Tribunal held that procedural requirements cannot defeat the substantive rights conferred by a beneficial legislation. Applying purposive interpretation principles endorsed by SC, CESTAT concluded that the appellant had complied with VCES requirements, the VCES-I declaration was valid, and the rejection thereof as well as the impugned order were unsustainable. en-us Mon, 01 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 11 Dec 2025 08:55:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783171 CESTAT allowed the appeal, holding the appellant eligible for benefit under the VCES. It ruled that service tax deposited prior to enactment of the scheme could be treated as payment towards "tax dues" under VCES when read with its substantive, beneficial object. Rejecting the Revenue's contention that only payments made after acknowledgment of declaration under section 107 qualify, the Tribunal held that procedural requirements cannot defeat the substantive rights conferred by a beneficial legislation. Applying purposive interpretation principles endorsed by SC, CESTAT concluded that the appellant had complied with VCES requirements, the VCES-I declaration was valid, and the rejection thereof as well as the impugned order were unsustainable. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 01 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783171