2014 (3) TMI 985 - AT - Service Tax

Denial of refund claim - storage and warehousing services - Bar of limitation - TR6 challan submitted by the appellant did not reflect the refund amount - Held that - appellant have filed refund claim in time as the date of merger is with effect from 1-4-2004 which was ultimately decided on 30-4-2007 and refund claim is filed within a year i.e. 24-12-2007. Further I find that both companies have amalgamated their merger. Hence M/s. IBP Ltd. and appellant are the same legal entity. Therefore they are entitled for refund claim. - Decision in assessee s own previous case 2011 (3) TMI 187 - CESTAT CHENNAI followed - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against rejection of refund claim for service tax paid during a specific period.

Analysis:
The appellant filed a refund claim for service tax paid during a particular period on storage and warehousing services rendered by another company post a merger. The claim was denied citing it as time-barred and lacking proper documentation. The appellant's earlier case on a similar issue was considered, where the effective date of merger was crucial. The Tribunal observed that the merger date was from 1-4-2004, even though officially approved later. It was noted that the companies had amalgamated, making them the same legal entity. Thus, the refund claim was deemed valid.

In conclusion, the impugned order rejecting the refund claim was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief. The Tribunal's decision was based on the effective date of the merger and the legal entity status post-amalgamation. The appellant's timely filing and the nature of the merger were crucial factors in determining the entitlement to the refund claim.