TMI Blog2011 (3) TMI 187X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Technocraft Industries (I) Ltd. is also preferring to accept what is referred to as effective date which was different from the approval date - The other submission that the certificate has been surrendered on 04.05.2007 is also not relevant as on the said date both IOCL and IBP were present only as IOCL - IOCL has taken over the assets and liabilities of erstwhile IBP w.e.f. 01.04.04 in view of the amalgamation - The surrender formalities were also undertaken by IOCL- Therefore, IOCL is stepping into the shoes of erstwhile IBP, have claimed the refund - The appeal by the department is rejected - The stay petition is also disposed of. - ST/S/454/2010 & ST/767/2010 - 394/2011 - Dated:- 1-3-2011 - Mr. M. VEERAIYAN, JJ. Shri C. Ran ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 007 surrendered the registration certificate issued to IBP under Central Excise Law. IOCL also claimed refund of service tax amounting to Rs. 8,40,752/- on 29.05.2007, being the service tax paid by IBP, during the period from March, 2006 to February, 2007. d) The claim was rejected by the original authority against which the assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner (A) and the Commissioner (A) vide his order dated 24.09.09 remanded the matter for fresh consideration by the original authority with certain directions. e) In the denovo order dated 06.04.10 passed by the original authority, the claim has been rejected and against which the party filed an appeal before the Commissioner (A) and the Commissioner (A) vide the impugned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which was w.e.f. 01.04.04. 6. I have carefully considered the submissions from both sides and perused the records. The amalgamation order issued by the Ministry of Petroleum is undisputedly dated 30.04.07. However, the said order specified 01.04.04 as the effective date of merger. Apparently, the process of amalgamation took considerable time and the same has been effected only by order dated 30.04.07. Such retrospective approval does pose certain practical difficulties. The effect of the order is that from 01.04.04, IBP ceased to exist as a separate company. That being the case, the transaction between IBP and IOCL during the interim period could not be treated as between a service provider and service recipient. As the order of the Mi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
