9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (9) TMI 29 - AT - Service TaxRefund claim - N/N. 17/2007-ST dated 07.07.2009 as amended by N/N. 41/2012-ST dated 29.06.2012 - Original authority held that the shipping bill and commercial invoices were in the name of M/s.BRK Commodity India Ltd. and the application for refund was filed by M/s.KLA (I) Public Ltd. and therefore they were not admissible for refund - Held that - A copy of fresh certificate of incorporation is available at page 37 of the appeal paper book and therefore it is undisputed fact that M/s.BRK Commodity India Ltd. and M/s.KLA India Public Ltd. are one and the same - refund cannot be rejected on the said ground that the documents were in the name of M/s. BRK Commodity India Ltd. and the refund application was filed by M/s.KLA India Public Ltd.. However, there is no report available on record about the requirement of conditions of said Notification having been satisfied in the present case. Matter remanded to the original authority to examine admissibility of the refund in terms of the conditions of the Notification under which refund claim was filed - appeal allowed by way of remand.
Issues:
1. Discrepancy in the name of the exporter in the shipping documents and the refund application. 2. Interpretation of the legal implications of a change in the name of the exporting entity. 3. Admissibility of the refund claim under specific Notification conditions. Analysis: 1. The case involved a discrepancy where the shipping documents were in the name of M/s.BRK Commodity India Ltd., while the refund application was filed by M/s.KLA (I) Public Ltd. The original authority rejected the refund claim on this basis, stating that they were not admissible. The Commissioner(Appeals) also upheld this decision, emphasizing that transactions after the name change of M/s.BRK Commodity India Ltd. did not hold legal validity. The appellant challenged this decision before the Tribunal. 2. The Tribunal considered the argument presented by the appellant that M/s.BRK Commodity India Ltd. and M/s.KLA (I) Public Ltd. were the same entity, as the former had changed its name to the latter on 01.10.2013. The Tribunal noted that a fresh certificate of incorporation confirming the name change was on record, establishing the identity of the two entities. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the refund claim could not be rejected solely based on the discrepancy in names. 3. However, the Tribunal also highlighted that there was no evidence on record regarding the satisfaction of the conditions specified in the relevant Notification under which the refund claim was made. As a result, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the original authority for further examination of the admissibility of the refund claim in accordance with the conditions of the Notification. The Tribunal set aside the previous orders and directed the original authority to decide the claim after ensuring compliance with the legal requirements. In conclusion, the Tribunal recognized the identity of the exporting entity despite the name change but emphasized the importance of meeting the specific conditions outlined in the Notification for the refund claim to be valid. The case illustrates the significance of legal compliance and accurate documentation in matters concerning refund claims under excise laws.
|
