9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (9) TMI 334X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hri J.S. Negi, SDR, for the Appellant. Shri Hardik Modh, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order]. - Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order wherein the Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the refund claim of Rs. 8,10,805/- rejected by the original adjudicating authority on the ground of limitation. 2. The learned DR submitted that the refund claim was filed under Notification No. 41/07-S.T., dated6-10-07which provided for refund of service tax paid on specified services used in or in relation to manufacture of goods and services exported fromIndia. According to the notification as it existed through the relevant period i.e. for the quarter ending December 2007 the claim should have been filed before28-2-08. However the claim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... could be filed by 31 December 08. He submitted that this would amount to giving retrospective effect to the notification. Further he also submits that appellant as a manufacturer was eligible for the refund of cenvat credit of service tax paid on input services as per cenvat credit rules also where there is no time limit. He submits that on this ground also respondent would be eligible for the benefit of refund. 4. I have considered the submissions made by both the sides. There can be no dispute that exemption notifications have to be construed strictly and liberal construction enlarging the term and scope of notification is not permissible. However in this also, the notification has been enlarged by the Board itself by issue of a ci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lar quarter. It is the submission of the respondents that in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Indian Tobacco Association, the word 'substituted' would mean that the notification benefit will have to be extended to them also. In the case of Indian Tobacco Association, notification was issued extending the benefit of 2% incentives in respect of exports made from Inland container depots andGunturwas not mentioned in the notification dated7-4-97. However on a representation made by the association, an amendment to the notification was made in November 1997 whereby for the words 'Ludhiana&Guntur,Ludhiana,Hyderabad,Nagpur,Faridabad,GunturandVaranasiwere substituted. The representation made by the association to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sued by the Union of India was, thus, to grant the same benefit which had been granted to the exporters who were registered at the other seaports, airports or inland container depots as specified in the notification dated 7-4-1997 but also to those exporters, who had been exporting from such seaports or inland depots as specified in the amended notification dated 27-11-1997." 5. On this ground it was claimed by the respondent that in this case also, the substitution of words 'six months' has to be treated as existing in the original notification. However I take note of the fact that in para 26 of the very same decision, Hon'ble Court observed that the "the Court having regard to the purport and object sought to be achieved by the legi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
