By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, FEB 08, 2017: THE appellant had filed a declaration under the VCES, 2013 before the Commissioner and which was partially rejected.

The appellant is in appeal before the Tribunal.

It is submitted that they had hired an ‘expert' for filing the VCES declaration and he had computed the total dues as Rs.4,08,857/-. They had, therefore,paid 50% of the total dues (of Rs.2,04,429/-) at the time of filing the said declaration.

However, due to a typographical error at Sl. No. 6 of the said VCES declaration, the total liability was declared as Rs.2,04,429/- instead of Rs.4,08,857/- and on this count the declaration was rejected.

It is further submitted that ST liability of Rs.44,903/- in respect of works undertaken for APMC remained to be declared under the VCES and which dues they have paid along with interest and they seek waiver of penalties.

The AR while reiterating the stand taken by the Commissioner submitted that the appellant having admitted to the mis-declaration, penalty is imposable.

The Bench observed -

++ I find that there are two aspects involved in this dispute. First relates to the so called clerical error in the entitled VCES declaration for the Service Tax liability of Rs.4,08,857/-. It is an admitted fact that the appellant had wrongly mentioned in Sl. No. 6 of the said declaration. The tax liability of Rs.4,08,857/- admitted by them was correctly declared in the enclosures attached to the said declaration. The appellants have also admittedly paid 50% of the said liability amounting to Rs.2,04,429/- at the time of filing the declaration. Considering the totality of circumstances it is apparent that it was not intended to file wrong declaration but it was a typographical error. [Promind Solutions Pvt. Ltd. - 2016-TIOL-220-CESTAT-ALL relied upon]

++ The appellant has fulfilled his actual tax liability at the time of filing the declaration and the enclosures contained correct amount disclosed, one typographical error cannot dis-entitled the appellant from the benefit of the scheme insofar as the amount declared therein dues concerned.

++ Insofar as the demand of Rs.44,903/- is concerned, it is apparent that the appellant had failed to consider this said amount in VCES declaration, no benefit in respect of said duty and penalty can be granted to the appellant.

The appeal was partly allowed.

(See 2017-TIOL-352-CESTAT-MUM)