2009 (7) TMI 492 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim Limitation Notification No. 41/2007-S.T read with Section 11B - The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of derivative products of Castor Oil and export of the said goods out of India. In this case Tri.-(Ahmd.) held that the refund claims in the present case stand filed by the appellant on 16-6-08, even when the amended limitation period, which was introduced on 18-11-2008, was not available. The benefit of the subsequently enlarged period cannot be extended to the appellant thus, there is no merit in this appeal hence it is rejected.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the refund claim filed by the appellant is barred by limitation under Notification No. 41/2007-S.T., dated 6-10-2007.
2. Whether the amendment to the notification providing a longer period for filing refund should be applicable retrospectively.
3. The impact of the clarification issued by the Board on the limitation period for filing refund claims.

Analysis:
1. The main issue in the appeal was whether the refund claim filed by the appellant, related to service tax paid on specified services for the export of goods, was time-barred under Notification No. 41/2007-S.T., dated 6-10-2007. The appellant filed the refund claims after the specified 60-day period from the end of the relevant quarters had expired. The appellant argued that the one-year period under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act should apply. However, the Tribunal held that the notification itself provided a specific period for claiming the refund, and it could not be extended by Section 11B. The Tribunal emphasized that the notification outlined a procedure for claiming refunds under an exemption notification, distinct from a simple refund of excess duty paid.

2. The appellant contended that an amendment to the notification on 18-11-2008, substituting the 60-day period with six months, should be considered clarificatory and applicable to past periods. The Tribunal rejected this argument, stating that the amendment did not clarify any ambiguity but provided a longer period for filing refunds. Moreover, the amendment explicitly stated it would come into force from the publication date, indicating a change in law rather than a clarification.

3. The appellant referred to a clarification by the Board in Circular No.112/6/2009-S.T., dated 12-3-2009, regarding the revised limitation period for filing refund claims. The appellant sought to apply this clarification retroactively to their case. However, the Tribunal ruled that the benefit of the revised limitation period could not be extended to the appellant as the refund claims were filed before the amendment introducing the extended period. Therefore, the Tribunal found no merit in the appeal and rejected it based on the timelines specified in the original notification and subsequent amendments.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key legal arguments, interpretations of relevant notifications, and the Tribunal's reasoning in deciding the issues raised in the appeal before them.