TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (12) TMI 790
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng services'. They discharged service tax for such services. Later, the Ministry of Company Affairs accorded sanction to the scheme of amalgamation of M/s. IBP Co. Ltd. with the appellant's organization (M/s. IOC) vide order dated 30.4.2007. In view of such amalgamation, the appellant filed a refund claim on 14.3.2008 seeking refund of service tax paid on storage and warehousing services to the tune of Rs. 30,27,454/- for the period from April 2004 to August 2007 stating that pursuant to scheme of amalgamation which has taken effect from 1.4.2004, since both the entities have become a single entity, there is no service provided and therefore no liability to pay service tax. A show cause notice was issued proposing to reject the refund claim....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted to sub-clause (ec) of Section 11B(5) of Central Excise Act, 1944 and submitted that as per this provision, in case where the duty becomes refundable as a consequence of judgment, decree, order or direction of appellate authority, appellate Tribunal or any court, the relevant date for reckoning the period of one year would be the date of such judgment, decree, order or direction. Ld. counsel has produced a copy of GSR No. 238 dated 2.2.1978 issued by the Ministry of Company Affairs wherein it has been directed that the Companies Act is to be modified / amended in Section 100,101, 102, 103, 391 and 394 by substituting the words "Central Government" instead of the word "Court. Thus, he argued that since direction/order passed by the Minist....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt of the ld. counsel referring to sub-clause (ec) in Section 11B(5), he submitted that the relevant date mentioned in the said provision is with regard to refund which is in consequence of judgment or decree passed by any court. The said provision does not refer to a direction given by Ministry of Company Affairs or of a High Court for amalgamation. He argued that the authorities below have rightly rejected the refund claim. 4. Heard both sides. 5. The foremost reason for rejection of the refund claim is that it has been filed beyond the period of one year from the payment of service tax. The refund claim has been filed on 14.3.2008. The Ministry of Company Affairs has issued the order of amalgamation on 30.4.2007. Further, in this order....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....passed by the Ministry of Company Affairs. In such a case, the refund claim which has been filed within one year after receiving the order or after coming to know about the amalgamation has to be considered to be made within the time prescribed under section 11B of the Act. The decision in the case of ITC Hotels Ltd. (supra) as well as the decisions in the case of IOC Ltd. (supra) would assist the appellant on this issue. Following the said decisions, we are of the considered opinion that the refund claim is not hit by time bar. 5.1 The issue of unjust enrichment in the case of amalgamation has been analyzed by the Tribunal in the case of Usha International Ltd. (supra). The Tribunal in the said case has referred to the decision in ITC Hot....