9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 1011X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 99/2018 - Dated:- 12-1-2018 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Shri S. Muthuvenkataraman, Advocate for the Appellant Shri S.Govindarajan, AC (AR) for the Respondent ORDER Per Bench Brief facts are that appellants are engaged in marketing products manufactured by M/s. CPCL and are paying service tax under the category of Transport of Goods by Road . Due to amalgamation of M/s. IBP Co. Ltd. with the appellants, with effect from 1.4.2004, they filed a refund claim on 31.1.2008 for the service tax paid for storage and warehousing charges for the period from April 2004 to February 2006. A show cause notice was issued proposing to reject the refund claim and after ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of services to themselves and not to a distinct service recipient or distinct person and any payment of service tax on the said services would amount to erroneous payment and thus the appellants are eligible for refund. As per section 65(zzza) of the Finance Act, storage and warehousing services rendered to any person is taxable. Pursuant to merger, as there is no distinct service recipient from the appellant, it has to be construed that the appellant has not rendered the said services. There upon the appellant filed the refund claim. The final merger order having been issued on 30.4.2007, the relevant date as per clause (ec) of section 11B would be the date of order of Ministry of Company Affairs passing the order of amalgamation. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order to be taken as the relevant date. In the present case, there can be no dispute that the order giving rise to the cause of action in not an order in the course of dispute relating to the amount claimed as refund. In this regard the legal maxim noscitur a sociis may be referred under which associated words take their meaning from one another. The term order being associated with appellate proceedings should be interpreted as an order arising from such appellate proceedings and not any order which may initiate cause of action to file the refund claim. The decisions relied by the appellants are single Member decisions and are not binding upon Division Bench. That the refund has been rightly rejected by the authorities below. 4. Heard b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
