2018 (12) TMI 1042

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Tribunal. On consideration of the submissions raised by the parties, the Appeal is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage. 3. The Appellant had paid an amount of Rs. 6,79,877/- towards service tax on rentals from February 2009 which comprises of arrears of service tax amounting to Rs. 6,27,965/- and regular service tax payment of Rs. 51,912/- from January to March 2013 vide challan dated 28 March 2013. The Appellant, upon becoming aware of the Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme (VCES) introduced under the Finance Act, 2013 on 27 November 2013, filed declaration under Section 107(1) of the Finance Act, 2013 on 27 November 2013 for waiver of interest on service tax dues paid on renting of immovable property services amoun....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ppeals) to take up the appeal and dispose of the same in accordance with law. The Appeal presented by the Appellant to the Commissioner (Appeals), together with an application for condonation of delay, came to be rejected by the Appellate Authority holding that the same is not maintainable, as well as on consideration of merits. The Appellant preferred an appeal to the CESTAT i.e. the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench at Mumbai which has been dismissed by the Tribunal by an order dated 8 September 2017, holding that the same is not maintainable. 4. The Appellant, to substantiate his contentions, has placed reliance on the Judgment in the matter of Narasimha Mills Private Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Exc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....to the extent specifically excluded, apply to the proceedings under the Scheme. The impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax would necessarily be appelable under Section 86 of the Indian Finance Act, 1994." Approving the view of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the matter as aforesaid, the Court has further observed in paragraphs 14 to 18, as quoted below : "14. Therefore, Clause (1) of Section 85 denotes that any person aggrieved by any decision or order passed by an adjudicating authority subordinate to the Commissioner of Central Excise may appeal to the Commissioner of Central Excise. It is pertinent to note that the word "adjudicating authority" has not been defined in the Act, 1994. However,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... with show cause notice dated 8.2.2012 demanding service tax of Rs. 21,44,299/- for the period from 1.4.2007 to 31.3.2011, which was confirmed vide original order, dated 28.3.2013 and as such in terms of Section 106(2) of the Act, 1994 and in view of Circular Nos. 169 and 170, dated 13.5.2013 and 8.8.2013, the petitioner is not entitled to avail the said scheme. Therefore, when the authority, the second respondent herein has given such a categorical finding on going through the facts and circumstances of the case by applying his mind, his decision, in my considered opinion, would fall within the meaning of "adjudication" which is meant by settled law that "giving or pronouncing a decision or order judicially" and thereby, I have no hesitati....