2018 (9) TMI 1672 – BOMBAY HIGH COURT – 2018 (18) G. S. T. L. 595 (Bom.) – Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme (VCES) – Right to appeal – CESTAT dismissed the appeal on the ground that VCES being a self contained code under Finance Act, 2013 without any appeal provision in the scheme and that the appeal is not maintainable.
–
Held that:- The issue decided in the case of Narasimha Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.(Appeals), Coimbatore, [2015 (6) TMI 787 – MADRAS HIGH COURT] where the Madras High Court, by specific observation, dismissed the appeal on the ground that there is no remedy of appeal in the scheme would be giving unfettered power to the authority and same is not acceptable.
–
There is no reason to adopt a different approach and view than the approach and view adopted by Madras High Court. – The CESTAT directed to hear the appeal afresh and pass appropriate orders on merit of the appeal.
–
Decided in favor of assessee. – CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO.6 O
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ther details. 3. The appellant submitted his reply to the show cause notice but finding no favour with the reply, the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and ordered recovery of tax amount along with under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994, in addition penalty was imposed. 4. Being aggrieved, the appeal was preferred before the appellate tribunal by the appellant on 19th January, 2016. The appellate tribunal initially issued notice and then on 22nd September, 2017 passed order. Same is impugned in the present appeal. 5. Mr. Sharma, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant invited our attention to the order and submitted that though firstly reference is made to the absence of the appellant, the tribunal subsequently by observing that VCES being a self contained code under Finance Act, 2013 without any appeal provision in the scheme dismissed the appeal holding that the appeal is not maintainable. He then submits that dismissal of appeal on the ground of no provision in the
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
; Property Consultants vs Dy. C.C.E. & S.T. Dera Bassi, reported in 2014(35) S.T.R. 65 ( P & H) and submitted that similar view which is taken by the Madras High Court in Narasimha Mills Pvt. Ltd (supra) is taken by Punjab and Haryana High Court in Barnala Builders & Property Consultants (supra). 8. Though Mrs. Bharaswadkar Patil, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent opposes the appeal, considering the facts of the present matter and considering the judgments relied on by Mr. Sharma, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, we are of the view that there is no reason to adopt a different approach and view than the approach and view adopted by Madras High Court as well as Punjab & Haryana High Court. 9. It would be useful to refer observations of Madras High Court on the issue in paragraph Nos. 18 and 19, which read thus : 18. Further, it is relevant to note that the Service Tax Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme, 2013 has been introduced by the Central
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
e decision maker, who, while passing such order, might have misapplied the law, came to an incorrect factual finding, acted in excess of his jurisdiction, abused his powers, was biased, considered evidence which he should not have considered, or failed to consider evidence that he should have considered. To err is human and hence it cannot be expected that all the decision makers would be perfect in their approach in arriving at just conclusions. If any statute or scheme does not make the appeal provision, it would be nothing to mean that the order passed by the authority has become final and conclusive for all the purposes and thereby, giving uncontrolled and unquestionable powers to the said authority by virtue of which, he becomes as monopoly over the statute and will certainly act in an arrogant manner. In this case, the second respondent is the original authority, whose decision regarding the eligibility of the assessee under the scheme is final even if the said decision may perve
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =