9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (5) TMI 242X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es, for the Appellant. Shri A.K. Sharma, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. - Head both sides. 2. Appellant filed this application against the impugned order whereby the refund claim made in respect of the Service Tax paid in respect of the exported goods. The refund claim was rejected on the ground of limitation. Refund claim was filed under the Notification No.41/07-ST dated 6/10/2007 and the Notification specifically provides that the claim of refund shall be filed on quarterly basis within sixty days from the end of relevant quarter during which the said goods were exported. In the present case the refund claim was filed on 28/4/2008 for the quarter October, 2007 to December, 2007 i.e. after 60 days. Thereafter the Notificati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cation does not provide that it is clarificatory or retrospective in nature. The Revenue relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bombay Oil Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India reported in 1995 (77) ELT 32 (S.C.). 4. In this case the Notification No.41/07-ST provides that the refund claim shall be filed on quarterly basis within sixty days from the end of relevant quarter during which the goods have been exported. The goods in question were exported during the quarter October 2007 to December, 2007 and the refund claim was filed beyond sixty days i.e. on 28/4/2008. The Notification was amended by another Notification No.32/08-ST vide which the period for filing refund claim was beyond six months. The appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... em by the latter Notification dated 2/9/1978 and, therefore, the latter Notification be treated as clarificatory Notification read with above Notification of 2/8/1976. It is not possible to agree as the disputed imports with which we are concerned are prior to 2/9/1978. They are, therefore, covered by the earlier Notification of 1976. It is true that the Tribunal by noting these submission has observed in paragraph 35 of the judgement that the colour specification was an error and that the error be removed but for that reason it could not ignore the colour specification when it was the part of the law. We entirely agree with the view of the Tribunal that even if the Central Government corrected its error about condition No. 2 from 2/9/1978 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
