AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (10) TMI 1733
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Encouragement Scheme, 2013 (VCES in short), has been rightly rejected. 2. The brief facts are that the appellant had filed under the VCES-1 declaration on 28.6.2013. Thereafter, the appellant made full payment of tax dues declared under the VCES and furnished the proof of such payment to the designated authority vide letter dated 25.7.2013. The VCES-1 declaration filed by the assessee was sent to different agencies for verification and report with detailed comments on the issue regarding admissibility and correctness of the claim was called from them. As per the report received from the DGCEI, Mumbai an enquiry was initiated against the assessee and they were asked to furnish documents under Rule 5A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. It ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Tax Dues and have also made the payment of Tax Dues as per declaration and have also intimated the same vide letter dated 25.7.2013, the declaration application should not be rejected. It was further contended that the declaration made was true. Further reference was made to Section 111(1) of the Finance Act, 2013 which provides the consequences of failure to make true declarations. In such case, the Commissioner of Central Excise has reasons to believe that the declaration made by a declarant under this Scheme was substantially false, he may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, serve notice on the declarant in respect of such declaration requiring him to show cause why he should not pay the tax dues not paid or short paid. As the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....osed the fact of the notice of DGCEI dated 20.9.2012 in their VCES application, and as the information from DGCEI came to the notice of Designate authority only on 14.10.2013, hence, issue of notice proposing rejection dated 15.10.2013 was held to be within time. 2.3 Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The learned Commissioner (Appeals) relying on the ruling of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Barnala Builders & Property Consultants Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Central Excise- Civil Writ Petition No.26929 of 2013, admitted the appeal and was pleased to dismiss the appeal upholding the order of rejection. 3. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....asked the appellant to submit the documents like, registration certificates, copy of the balance-sheet and audit reports, print out of account statements relating to business transaction, copy of agreements for services provided, copy of bills raised, details of payment received from the clients. It is further pointed out that it has been clarified vide CBE&C Circular dated 8.8.2013, in para 2, that a communication from the Revenue seeking information of roving nature would not attract the provisions of Section 106(2)(a) even though the authorities of Section 14 of Central Excise Act, may have been quoted therein. This clarification was further reiterated vide CBE&C Circular No. 174/9/2013-ST dated 25.11.2013 wherein with respect to the con....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s have been reiterated in the subsequent Circular dated 25.11.2013, further mentioning that Commissioner should ensure that the time size of 30 days is followed scrupulously. Accordingly, the appellant urges for setting aside the impugned order and for acceptance of its declaration under VCES. 4. The learned AR appearing for the Revenue relies on the impugned order. 5. Having considered the rival contentions, I find that the impugned order is vitiated due to factual error. It is evident from the documents on record, a copy of which have been filed with the appeal memo i.e. the forwarding letter dated 28.6.2013 along with the declaration filed by the appellant of even dated in both (forwarding letter and declaration form), the appel....