Yojana Infratech Vs Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise (CESTAT Mumbai)
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) first allowed miscellaneous applications seeking substitution of the respondent’s name and address in the cause title of the appeals from the Commissioner of Appeals-II, CGST & Central Excise, Mumbai, to the Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Mumbai Central.
The Tribunal noted that all the appeals involved an identical issue and therefore heard them together and disposed of them through a common order.
The dispute concerned the rejection of applications filed by the appellants under the Service Tax Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme (VCES), 2013. The designated authority had rejected the declarations on the ground that inquiries were pending against the appellants as on 01.03.2013, rendering them ineligible under Section 106 of the Finance Act, 2013.
The Tribunal noted that the Assistant Commissioner, VCES Cell, Service Tax-III Commissionerate, Mumbai, had issued a letter dated 18.08.2015 informing various applicants that they were not eligible to make declarations under the VCES Scheme in terms of Section 106(2)(a) of the Finance Act, 2013. The Tribunal further observed that certain applicants named in that communication, namely M/s Raj Infrastructure, M/s Kamala Mills, and M/s Klarissa Property Developers Pvt. Ltd., had challenged similar rejection orders before the Tribunal. In those appeals, co-ordinate Benches had allowed the assessees’ appeals through Final Orders dated 22.03.2018, 17.04.2018, and 20.05.2022.
