2011 (3) TMI 187

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n for final hearing.   2. This is an appeal filed by the department against the order of the Commissioner (A) No. 166/2010 dated 15.09.2020, by which the order of the original authority passed in denovo proceedings rejecting the refund claim of Rs. 8,40,752/- pertaining to the period March, 06 to February, 2007, was set aside.   3. The relevant dates and events deserve to be recorded in detail. They are as follows:-   a) M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred as IOCL), the present respondent and M/s. IBP Co. Ltd. (hereinafter IBP) were holding company and subsidiary company respectively.   b) A proposal was mooted for merging IBP, the subsidiary company with IOCL, the holding company and the M....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....een paid by IBP, and therefore the question of claim of refund by IOCL does not arise especially, after surrendering of registration certificate of IBP on 30.04.07. The submits that through the amalgamation was effective from 01.04.2004 as per the order of the Petroleum Ministry, the same came into effect only from 02.05.2007, when the Registrar of Companies granted approval of the same.   4.2 He relies on the following decisions in support of his submissions.   1) Technocraft Industries (I) Ltd.Vs. CCE, Mumbai 2000 (120) ELT 106 (Tri.)   2) Palani Andavar Cotton & Synthetic Spinners Ltd. Vs. CCE 2010 (252) ELT 127 (Tri.- Chen.)   3) CCE, Chandigarh Vs. Nahar Industrial Enterprises Ltd. 2009 (236) ELT 206 (Tr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... relied by the Ld. SDR does not support his case. In the said decision, it has been held that when the Hon ble High Court has given effective date which was different from the date of approval granted by the Hon ble High Court, the former date should prevail. In the present case, the Ministry s order clearly specifies the effective date, which is 01.04.04. Therefore, the original authority s order rejecting the refund claim holing that the effective date for amalgamation is from 2.5.07, cannot be approved. In view of the above, the Appellate Commissioner s order appears legal and proper. The decision of the Tribunal in the case of Technocraft Industries (I) Ltd.(cited supra) is also preferring to accept what is referred to as effective date....