Refund claims dismissed for premature filing before statutory approval of amalgamation.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals by M/s Pfizer Ltd and M/s Wyeth Ltd regarding the premature filing of refund claims before statutory approval of amalgamation. The Tribunal found that the assessed liability under the Finance Act, 1994, duly discharged is final and not subject to re-determination due to a scheme of amalgamation. The appeals were deemed without merit and were consequently dismissed.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Premature filing of refund claims before statutory approval of amalgamation.
2. Applicability of Section 73A of Finance Act, 1994.
3. Limitation period for filing refund claims.
4. Requirement to challenge self-assessment for refund eligibility.

Summary:

1. Premature Filing of Refund Claims:
The rejection of four refund claims by M/s Pfizer Ltd and M/s Wyeth Ltd (merged with M/s Pfizer Ltd) was examined. The claims were filed for tax liabilities discharged between April 2013 and September 2014. The original authority rejected these claims, and the first appellate authority confirmed the rejection. The core issue was whether the claims were premature, as they were filed before the statutory approval of the amalgamation scheme by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay on 31st October 2014, with an appointed date of 1st April 2013. The Tribunal noted that the lower authorities did not render a finding on the tax liability for the period covered by the scheme of amalgamation preceding the approval by the Hon'ble High Court.

2. Applicability of Section 73A of Finance Act, 1994:
The Tribunal addressed the applicability of Section 73A, which precludes the grant of refund for amounts deposited with the exchequer. The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had not proposed rejection of eligibility to sanction refund on this ground in the notice, and the contest thereto in appeal was ignored in the impugned order. The Tribunal concluded that Section 73A is not intended as enablement for transforming tax revenue received into a deposit for disposition in any manner detailed therein, and prior notice of intent is mandated.

3. Limitation Period for Filing Refund Claims:
For the claims filed after the statutory approval of the amalgamation scheme, the Tribunal examined whether the bar of limitation under Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944, applied. The Tribunal noted that the decision in Indian Oil Corporation Ltd v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai-I determined the relevant date to be the date of amalgamation. The Tribunal concluded that the applicability of the relevant date would arise only if the claim of the appellant that retrospective effect accorded to amalgamation erases taxability is accepted.

4. Requirement to Challenge Self-Assessment for Refund Eligibility:
The Tribunal considered the argument that self-assessment attains finality in the absence of a challenge, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ITC Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-IV. The Tribunal distinguished the circumstances of the present case from those in ITC Ltd, noting that in service tax matters, the assessee simply files the ST-3 return without an order of assessment passed by a departmental officer. The Tribunal concluded that the peculiar circumstances of the appeal, premised on the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in re Marshal Sons & Co (I) Ltd, call for disposal on its own factual matrix.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal found that the assessed liability under Finance Act, 1994, duly discharged and being neither provisional nor tentative, is beyond the scope of re-determination of levy merely because of a scheme of amalgamation. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as without merit.

---