2010 (5) TMI 242 - AT - Service Tax

Exemption by Refund- Refund under Notification No. 41/2007-S.T. rejected as claim filed beyond 60 days. Goods exported during the quarter October 2007 to December 2007 and refund claim filed on 28.04.2008. Notification No. 41/2007-ST amended by Notification No. 32/2008-ST. increasing time limit to six month. Held that amendment not clarificatory in nature and not retrospective. Impugned order rejecting refund on limitation sustainable.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim rejection on the ground of limitation under Notification No.41/07-ST, amendment to the notification extending the period for filing refund, clarificatory nature of the amendment, reliance on Supreme Court decisions, binding nature of provisions of an Act on authorities, prospective vs. retrospective operation of amendments, interpretation of earlier judgments by the Supreme Court.

Analysis:
The appellant filed an application against the rejection of a refund claim for Service Tax paid on exported goods, citing the limitation under Notification No.41/07-ST. The claim was filed after 60 days from the relevant quarter, which was amended later to allow a six-month period for filing refunds. The appellant argued that the amendment was clarificatory, considering the difficulties faced by the assessee, and relied on Supreme Court decisions supporting retrospective amendments for benefit extension. However, the Revenue contended that the claim was rightly rejected as it was filed beyond the prescribed period, emphasizing the binding nature of Act provisions on authorities and the prospective nature of the amendment without any clarificatory or retrospective indication.

The Tribunal noted that the original notification required refund claims within 60 days from the relevant quarter, while the amendment extended this period to six months. Drawing from Supreme Court judgments, the Tribunal highlighted the distinction between clarificatory and retrospective amendments. It emphasized that unless expressly or implicitly made retrospective, amendments are prospective. Referring to past cases, the Tribunal reiterated that authorities are bound by Act provisions and rules. It cited a Supreme Court case involving Customs Notification, where import conditions were changed, but imports made before the amendment had to adhere to the earlier conditions, underscoring the non-clarificatory and non-retrospective nature of such amendments.

Based on the Supreme Court decisions and legal principles discussed, the Tribunal found no flaw in the impugned order rejecting the refund claim. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, aligning with the interpretation of past judgments and the binding nature of Act provisions on authorities. The Tribunal's decision was guided by legal precedents and the distinction between prospective and retrospective amendments, ensuring consistency in the application of law.