9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 1011X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aim 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 due process of law, the original authority rejected the refund. Against this, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who rejected the appeal holding that the demand is time-barred. Hence the appellants are before this Tribunal. 2. The ld. counsel Shri S. Muthuvenkataraman argued on behalf of the appellant. He adverted to the show cause notice and argued that the allegation raised in the show cause notice is that the refund claim is time barred for non-production of documents evidencing the payment of service tax. Tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 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 view taken by the authorities below that the relevant date is the date of payment of service tax and that the refund claim is therefore hit by time-bar is a wrong interpretation of the provisions of law. He relied upon the decisions of the Tribunal in the cases of Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. IOC Ltd. - 2011 (23) STR 625 and also IOC Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of service Tax, Mumbai - 2015 (37) STR 575. The ld. counsel submitted that the later decision rendered in the case of IOC Ltd. (supra) is pari materia to the facts of the present case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... im. 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 both sides. 5. The common ground of argument by both sides is on the issue with regard to the relevant date for determination whether the refund claim has been filed within time. The ld. counsel for appellant has raised a contention adverting to the show cause notice and submitting that the show cause notice does not allege any ground of rejecting the refund claim on the sole ground of limitation. We find merit in this argument. In the show cause notice the allegation raised is that the claim is proposed to be rejected as being time-bar for non-producti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
