By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, MAY 26, 2015: TAKE a look at the way this case has developed over the past two years -

++ 2014-TIOL-1785-HC-MUM-ST

ST - Merger of companies - consolidated ST liability - petitioner paying ST of Rs.79,92,56,619/- being the liability of service tax dues of M/s. Chennai Networks Infrastructure Limited from October, 2010 to March, 2012 - later, petitioner advised that since the Bombay High Court had sanctioned the scheme of merger, the Madras High Court was yet to sanction it - they, therefore, sought virtual refund of the said amount of Rs.79,92,56,619/- or relief in the form of credit of their CENVAT credit amount to this extent - the said representation was kept pending and pursuant to order of the Court the representation was disposed of by the authorities by advising that the petitioner has to file an appropriate and proper application for refund or credit of service tax paid before the competent authority - against this speaking order, an appeal was filed but the CESTAT dismissed the same by holding it as not maintainable - writ petition filed.

Held: Once this Court has directed that the representation made by the petitioner to the authorities praying for refund or credit in the CENVAT credit account be considered and a speaking order be passed thereon after hearing the petitioner, then, the Tribunal has taken a hyper technical view in dismissing the appeal - Tribunal to decide appeal on merits and in accordance with law: High Court

Pursuant to the above, the CESTAT heard the matter and passed the following order - 2015-TIOL-187-CESTAT-MUM -

ST - Refund - Appellant GTL paying ST on behalf of company with which it sought to merge - as Madras High Court had not sanctioned the scheme of merger, CNIL paid ST under VCES, 2013 - Adjudicating authority to allow re-credit of Rs.79.92 crores in CENVAT account of appellant - refund not hit by limitation as claim arose only after the issuance of discharge certificate by the competent authority on 22.11.2013 - Appeal disposed of - Matter remanded: CESTAT

After passage of this order, the appellant filed an application seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against the Commissioner of Service Tax.

The Bench - 2015-TIOL-776-CESTAT-MUM while dismissing the application held -

ST - Application for initiating contempt proceedings against CST, Mumbai-II for disregarding Tribunal order - Applicant contending that the Commissioner instead of allowing re-credit of CENVAT as ordered by CESTAT only undertook quantification and informed appellant and Assistant Registrar, CESTAT, Mumbai - applicant has also filed a Misc. Application seeking clarification for taking re-credit of amount quantified by adjudicating authority. Held: It seems that the order as understood by the Commissioner was limited to the quantification of the CENVAT amount - Commissioner has only taken a plausible view in the light of the language used by the Tribunal in its referred order - as Misc. application filed by appellant is yet to come up before Bench, no case in made for initiating contempt - Application dismissed: CESTAT

The Miscellaneous application filed by the appellant seeking clarification of the order dated 05.01.2015 was heard recently.

The Bench observed that it had passed an unambiguous order inasmuch as from the contents of the paragraphs 7.5 and 7.6 it was clear that - …the order passed by the Tribunal is for re-credit of the amount to the appellant and only for a limited purpose of quantification of the amount, the matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority. We were informed that the adjudicating authority has quantified the amount as Rs.79,92,86,619/- by a communication addressed to Tribunal. As the amount is already quantified by the adjudicating authority, we clarify that the appellant can take the credit of Rs.79,92,86,619/-in their CENVAT records.

The Miscellaneous application was disposed of.

(See 2015-TIOL-945-CESTAT-MUM)