Concurrent Tech India Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner Of Service Tax ...
- CitationAppeal No. 57-2010
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A refund claim for CENVAT credit under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No. 5/2006 cannot be rejected merely because the export FIRCs are issued in the appellant's former name, where the change of name has not altered the identity of the company, the foreign principal or the bank account, and no legal provision makes a change of name a bar to refund.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 57-2010 dated 13/01/2011 passed by CCE(Appeals-II), Bangalore]
For approval and signature:
HON'BLE SHRI B.S.V.MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER
1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
CONCURRENT TECH INDIA PVT LTD SALARPURIA ZEST, II FLOOR, #16, J.P.NAGAR, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE 560076 Appellant(s)
Versus
Commissioner of Service Tax BANGALORE-SERVICE TAX NULL 1ST TO 5TH FLOOR, TTMC BUILDING,above BMTC BUS STAND,DOMLUR BANGALORE, - 560071 KARNATAKA Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Shri S.ANANTHAN, C.A. CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS, #643, 1ST MAIN, 7TH BLOCK, 11 PPHASE, BSK III STAGE, BANGALORE 560 085 BANGALORE - 560085 KARNATAKA For the Appellant
Shri Mohd. Yusuf, Addl. Commissioner(AR) For the Respondent
Date of Hearing: 16/03/2015
Date of Decision: 16/03/2015
CORAM:
HON'BLE SHRI B.S.V.MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER
Final Order No. 20727 / 2015
Per : B.S.V. MURTHY
The refund claim filed by the appellant for the period from August 2008 to September 2008 of the amount of CENVAT credit accumulated under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No.5/2006 has been rejected on the ground that the FIRCs received for the exports made are not in the name of the appellant.
2. The learned CA submits that the name of the appellant company had changed w.e.f. 13/02/2008 and other than the change of the name and address, nothing else has changed. The company remains the same and the foreign principal remains the same. Further he also submits that the bank account also remains the same. Under these circumstances, the rejection of the claim only on the ground that FIRCs are not in the present name of the appellant is not correct. I fully agree with the submissions of the learned CA. I am unable to find out legal provisions which provides that in case of change in the name, refund claim is not admissible. In the case of recovery of short-levy, short collection of revenue, show-cause notices are issued and amount is collected in similar cases. In such a situation, when it comes to refund, rejection of the claim only on the ground without support of any legal provision cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any, to the appellant.
(Order pronounced and dictated in open court)
B.S.V.MURTHY TECHNICAL MEMBER
Raja.
3
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free