9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (9) TMI 37 - AT - Service TaxRefund claim - refund claim was rejected on the ground 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. - 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. 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 and decide the claim in accordance with law - appeal allowed by way of remand.
Issues:
1. Discrepancy in exporter's name on shipping documents and refund application. 2. Interpretation of legal validity post name change of the exporting entity. 3. Admissibility of refund claim under specific Notification conditions. Issue 1: Discrepancy in exporter's name on documents 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 citing this inconsistency. The Commissioner(Appeals) upheld the decision, stating that transactions post name change of M/s.BRK Commodity India Ltd. were invalid. The Tribunal observed that both entities were the same post name change and held that the refund cannot be rejected solely based on the name difference. Issue 2: Interpretation of legal validity post name change The appellant argued that M/s.BRK Commodity India Ltd. and M/s.KLA (I) Public Ltd. were the same entity post name change on 01.10.2013. The Tribunal agreed, noting the availability of a fresh certificate of incorporation confirming the name change. The Tribunal emphasized that the refund claim should not be dismissed based on the name difference alone. However, the Tribunal highlighted the lack of a report confirming the fulfillment of conditions under the relevant Notification for the refund claim. Issue 3: Admissibility of refund claim under Notification conditions While acknowledging the equivalence of the exporting entities post name change, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the original authority for further examination. The Tribunal directed the original authority to assess the admissibility of the refund claim based on the conditions specified in the Notification under which the claim was filed. The Tribunal emphasized the need for the original authority to decide the claim in accordance with the law, indicating a procedural requirement for the assessment of the refund claim. This judgment addresses the discrepancies in exporter's name on documents, the legal validity post name change of the entity, and the admissibility of the refund claim under specific Notification conditions. The Tribunal clarified the equivalence of the entities post name change but emphasized the necessity for the original authority to evaluate the refund claim based on the Notification requirements.
|
