9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 1036X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... volved in all the 9 appeals is the same and pertains to refund of SAD claimed by the respondent for different periods. The details of the refund claims and period are given herein below: Sl. No. Appeal No. Amount Period 1 C/21514/2017 Rs. 47,898.50 July to August 2015 2 C/21515/2017 Rs. 21,392 August 2015 3 C/21516/2017 Rs. 42,202 August 2015 4 C/21517/2017 Rs. 21,544 August 2015 5 C/21518/2017 Rs. 57,009 September to October 2015 6 C/21519/2017 Rs. 1,46,127 September to October 2015 7 C/21520/2017 Rs. 1,42,965 November 2015 to February 2016 8 C/21521/2017 Rs. 1,37,014 January to June 2016 9 C/21522/2017 Rs. 2,21,972 December 2015 to June 2016 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fication. He also submitted that the Commissioner (A) has failed to appreciate that as per KVAT Act, the registration is issued to the main unit and other business premises are added and shown as additional premises in the registration. Whereas in the present case, there are three units working under different premises with distinct addresses and if the main registration is issued to M/s. Mohiudeen Saw Mills and the other two should have been added and shown as additional premises in the registration. He further submitted that in the instant case, the registration is issued by KVAT to the unit M/s. Mohiudeen Saw Mills and Hajee Timber Complex but other two units are not included in the registration as additional business premises. He also s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es of VSO 261, Bantwal bearing TIN No.29510061860. She further submitted that in the past on the same issue, the Department has not raised any objection and for the earlier period April 2015 to july 2015, the Commissioner (A) has passed a similar order dated 15.3.2017 bearing No.69-72/2017 on this very same ground but in those cases the department for the reasons best known to them has not filed any appeal against that order. 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that the respondent is a proprietor of both the organization and he has been allotted one TIN number for both the concerns under VAT Act. Further, I find that the certificate issued by the VAT clearly certifies that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al under KVAT Act, 2003." Though this endorsement had been produced by the importer before the lower adjudicating authority he has not taken into consideration these important documents issued by the VAT authorities which has an important bearing on the issue. It is on account of this that the VAT payment challan indicate the name as Mohiudeen Saw Mills and Hajee Timber Complex and common return have been filed. However, this is only because two entitles have a single TIN No., as they have a common Proprietor and under the VAT Laws as explained by the Commercial Tax Officer, Proprietorship concerns having the same Proprietor can only be allotted one TIN No. Therefore, it cannot be said that the importer has not paid the VAT with respect t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
