2018 (3) TMI 274

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dent filed an application under Voluntarily Compliance Encouragement Scheme, 2013, on 25.9.2013 for the period 2008-2012 for reversal of inadmissible Cenvat credit taken by them. The said declaration was rejected in terms of Section 106(1) of Finance Act, 2013. On appeal, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) relying on the decision in the case of Pace Setter Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India - 2015 (52) STR 11 (Bom.) allowed the benefit of VCES 2013 to the respondent. Against the said order, Revenue is before me. 3. The ld. AR submits that in terms of Section 106(1), there is a bar on the assessee to take the benefit of that scheme in a case where show cause notice has been issued or liability of service tax has been determined u....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... examined by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order has observed as under: "(iv) I observe that the Adjudicating Authority has relied upon sub-section (3) and (4A) of Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 to hold that the relevant audit para of IAR No.95/08 is an 'order of determination' made against the appellant. As there is no allegation that the relevant audit para is an 'order of determination' under Section 72 or Section 73A of Finance Act, 1994 and such allegation has been levelled only in respect of Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994. I proceed to examine as to whether the relevant audit para (which is admittedly closed upon payment of entire dues with interest by the appellant) is an 'order of determination' u....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he similar issue has also come up for decision before the Hon'ble High Court of Mumbai in Pace Setter Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. UOI - 2017 (52) STR 11 (Bom.). In this case, the audit of petitioner has been conducted for the period 2005-06 to 2007-08 and an audit observation has been raised. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner has paid the amount of Rs. 13,33,972/- along with interest and the audit para has been closed. After that, the petitioner has declared an amount of Rs. 47.33 Lacs under VCES 2013. Their declaration has been rejected holding that the issue on which the VCES declaration has been filed is similar to the issue revealed by the audit party (as mentioned above). Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has filed a writ petition ....