Just a moment...

Top
Help
Upgrade to AI Search

We've upgraded AI Search on TaxTMI with two powerful modes:

1. Basic
Quick overview summary answering your query with referencesCategory-wise results to explore all relevant documents on TaxTMI

2. Advanced
• Includes everything in Basic
Detailed report covering:
     -   Overview Summary
     -   Governing Provisions [Acts, Notifications, Circulars]
     -   Relevant Case Laws
     -   Tariff / Classification / HSN
     -   Expert views from TaxTMI
     -   Practical Guidance with immediate steps and dispute strategy

• Also highlights how each document is relevant to your query, helping you quickly understand key insights without reading the full text.Help Us Improve - by giving the rating with each AI Result:

Explore AI Search

Powered by Weblekha - Building Scalable Websites

×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2018 (6) TMI 1001

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....all 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 enti....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....knowledged by 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 inqui....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on is invited to clarification issued 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 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....claration of tax dues whereas in the present 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 sp....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....g contract value more than 10 Lakhs. Details of payments received from each of the contractor/party mentioned above. Copy of ST-3 returns filed with Service Tax department. The above information is called for under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, as made applicable to Service Tax under Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. under my hand and seal of fice, today the 17th Jan, 2013 ладичи (U.A.GUPTE) SENIOR INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, DGCEI, ZONAL UNIT, MUMBAI Document 2 GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE AND CUSTOMS, DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF CENTRAL EXCISE INTELLIGENCE , MUMBAI ZONAL UNIT, III FLOOR, NTC HOUSE, 15, N. M. ROA....