TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 1508
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntral Excise Act, 1944 made applicable to Service Tax [vide Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994], seeking annual reports for the years 2007-08 to 2010-11, details of expenditure in foreign currency regarding royalty, subscription, license fee and copy right fees, copies of royalty agreements, copies of ST-3 Returns for the above periods. In response thereto, it appears that on the very same day, the Appellant furnished annual report for the periods sought for along with royalty agreement and again on 27.09.2012, it appears that the rest of the details were furnished and duly acknowledged copy of letter dt. 26.09.2012 received by the officer on 27.09.2012 is placed on record. Further, vide letter dt. 11.10.2012 the Appellant appears to have ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uiry/investigation was initiated against the Declarant which was pending as on 01.03.2013, in response to which, vide its reply the Appellant appears to have clarified the position of law in the context of VCES and the CBEC's clarifications in Circular Nos.170/5/2013ST dated 08.08.2013, 174/9/2013-ST dated 25.11.2013 and thereby submitting that even if summons dt. 18.09.2013 were to be treated as 'inquiry/investigation', still going by the CBEC's clarifications any notice proposing to reject the declaration made under the scheme must be served within 30 days of the date of filing of the declaration in Form VCES-1 which having not been done in the case on hand, the Revenue's action proposing to reject the declaration does not hold any water.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....13.06.2016 however, having endorsed the views of the Designated Authority has thus chosen to reject the Appeal and the said Order-in-Appeal has given rise to the present Appeal. 6. Heard Shri Karthik Ram Mohan, Ld. Advocate for the Appellant and Smt. G. Krupa, Departmental Representative defended the impugned order; we have carefully considered the facts as forthcoming from the Appeal records placed before us including the orders of lower authorities. The only issue that survives for our consideration is, 'whether the rejection of the declaration under VCES by the Designated Authority as upheld in the impugned order is correct in law ?'. 7. Facts are not in dispute; a perusal of the scheme i.e. VCES clearly indicates that the benefit,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ies does not give any whisper as to any mischief or suppression etc. on the part of the Appellant, nor does the Designated Authority has any clue as to the purpose of summons which was termed by him as an 'inquiry/investigation'. These facts coupled with hand written summons dated 18.09.2012 also gives us an impression that the same was issued in a routine manner and hence, could aptly be termed as 'roving in nature'. It is the case of the Appellant which is also undisputed by the Revenue, that there is no order as a follow up of the rejection of the declaration, i.e. passing of any order demanding penalty or charging interest. 9. In view of the above discussions, in the peculiar facts of this case, we are of the view that the summons da....