TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 1011
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t for the period from 01.04.2011 to 31.12.2012 on the ground that the declaration submitted by the appellant under the Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme (VCES) was substantially false and a demand of Rs.3,77,564/- has been confirmed for the period from 01.01.2013 to 31.03.2013 on the ground that the appellant had failed to discharge the Service Tax liability in respect of the services rendered by them during the said period, along with applicable interest and penalties thereon. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant, M/s. Canvas Communications Pvt. Ltd., was engaged in providing services relating to sale of space for advertisement and was registered with the Service Tax Department under Service Tax Registration No. AADCC....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the basis of the above allegations, a Show Cause Notice dated 22.12.2014 came to be issued proposing, inter alia, (i) recovery of Service Tax amounting to Rs.28,35,754/- (inclusive of cess) for the period from 01.04.2011 to 31.12.2012 under Section 111(1) of the Finance Act, 2013 (ii) recovery of Service Tax amounting to Rs.3,77,564/- (inclusive of cess) for the period from 01.01.2013 to 31.03.2013 under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 and (iii) recovery of interest and imposition of penalties under Sections 77 (2) and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 4.1. The appellant contested the allegations and filed a detailed reply to the Show Cause Notice, disputing, inter alia, the taxability, quantification and a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to Rs.1,93,885/- for the period 01-04-2011 to 30-09-2012 which is more than the actual amount payable for availing the benefits of the Scheme. In terms of the Scheme, the appellant paid Rs.1,01,945/- on 28-12-2013 (50% of the declared tax dues) and Rs.98,800/- on 19-03-2014, thus, the appellant has paid Rs.2,00,745/- the whole 'tax dues' in term of declaration and eligible for the immunity. (iii) The appellant states that the service provided by the appellant is in the Negative of List of Service under Section 66D(g) of the Finance Act,1994 w.e.f.01-07-2012 but the appellant has declared tax dues up to 30-09-2012 and paid tax. Thereafter, the common Show Cause Notice dated 22-12-2014 was issued by invoking two provisions, Section ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....be used for any payment under the Scheme. (vi) The appellant most respectfully submits that the ld. Adjudicating Authority has failed to appreciate that: * The Payment of Rs.1,59,521/- and interest Rs.18,078/- cannot be denied on the grounds that the appellant did not furnish the ST-3 returns, the payment is acknowledged at Paragraph 5.6 * Furnishing return is not a condition for taking CENVAT Credit, therefore denial of CENVAT Credit on the ground of non-furnishing the ST-3 returns is bad in law. (vii) The appellant submits that Rule 6(2) of the Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Rules,2013 read as follows: "Rule 6 Payment of tax dues. - (1) The tax dues payable under the Scheme along with inter....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....als on which VAT has been paid is against the principles of law. (xi) Furthermore, the appellant submits trading of goods is in the Negative List of Service under Section 66D (e) of the Act. No findings whatsoever have been recorded regarding confirmation of demand Rs.3,77,564/- for the period 01-01-2013 to 31-03-2013. (xii) That the ld. Adjudicating Authority in order to establish that the declaration made by the appellant is substantially false, confirmed the demand as raised in the table at paragraph 2.6 of the Show Cause Notice amounting to Rs.3,77,564/-(including Cess) for the period 01 -01-2013 to 31-03-2013, which is beyond the period of declaration. (xiii) That clubbing of two different demand i.e. one sho....