TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 985X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 04, which was ultimately decided on 30-4-2007 and refund claim is filed within a year i.e. 24-12-2007. Further, I find that both companies have amalgamated their merger. Hence, M/s. IBP Ltd. and appellant are the same legal entity. Therefore, they are entitled for refund claim. - Decision in assessee's own previous case [2011 (3) TMI 187 - CESTAT, CHENNAI ] followed - Decided in favour of assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... allan submitted by the appellant did not reflect the refund amount. Moreover, debit note submitted have not indicated as to whether the amount is in relation to M/s. IBP Ltd. Therefore, refund claims were not maintainable on merits. 3. Heard both sides. Considered the submissions. 4. In appellant s own case for the earlier period on identical issue reported in 2011 (23) S.T.R. 625 (T) has ob ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ective date of amalgamation, notwithstanding the date of approval given by the Registrar of Companies being 2-5-2007, the specific date indicating the date of amalgamation as 1-4-2004 should be accepted. 7. The case of CCE, Chandigarh v. Nahar Industrial Enterprises Ltd. (cited supra) relied by the ld. SDR does not support his case. In the said decision, it has been held that when the Hon ble H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te both IOCL and IBP were present only as IOCL. IOCL has taken over the assets and liabilities of erstwhile IBP w.e.f. 1-4-2004 in view of the amalgamation. Undisputedly the surrender formalities were also undertaken by IOCL. Therefore, IOCL is stepping into the shoes of erstwhile IBP, have claimed the refund. 5. In the light of the above decision of this Tribunal, I hold that the appellant ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
