9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 1332X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation. The period of dispute in Appeal No.ST/56886/2013 is from January 2009 to March 2009 and the refund amount involved is Rs.4.51,460/- (two refund claims). The period of dispute in respect of Appeal No.ST/56887/2013 is from April, 2009 to August, 2009 and total refund amount involved is Rs.6,83,834/- (one refund claim). The refund claims, in respect of the period from January 2009 to March 2009 had been filed on 6.11.2009 and 29.10.2009 while the refund claim in respect of the period from April 2009 to August, 2009 had been filed on 30.10.2009. Both these refund claims had been filed under Notification No.17/2009-ST dated 7.7.2009, as at the time of filing of refund claims, the earlier Notification No.41/2007-ST dated 6.10.2007 had been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant, pleaded that since at the time of filing of refund claims the Notification No.17/2009-ST dated 7.7.2009 was in force, and since this Notification has been issued in supersession of the earlier Notification No.41/2007-ST, the refund claims have been correctly filed under Notification No.17/2009-ST, that in this regard he relies upon the Board's Circular No.354/256/2009-TRU dated 1.1.2010 on the basis of which the Dibrugarh Commissionerate had issue Trade Notice No.7/2010 dated 4.2.2010, that in this Circular it has been clarified by the Board that the new Notification No.17/2009-ST dated 7.7.2009 does not bar its applicability to the exports that have taken place prior to its issuance and, therefore, the scheme prescribed under Not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant's submissions in this regard and that in view of above, the impugned order upholding the rejection of refund claims is not sustainable. 4. Ms. Shewta Bector, ld. Departmental Representative, defended the impugned order by reiterating the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) and emphasized that Notification No.17/2009-ST being prospective, cannot be given retrospective effect, and hence the notification No.17/2009-ST issued on 7.7.2009 would not be applicable in respect of exports made during the period prior to 7.7.2009, that refund claims would, therefore, be governed by the limitation period prescribed in Notification No.41/2007-ST, that services like inland haulage, forwarding charges etc. are not covered by the Notification N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s are filed within the stipulated period of one year and no previous refund claims have already been filed under the previous notification. Thus, during the period on or after 7.7.2009, if an exporter who had made exports prior to 7.7.2009, but had not filed refund claims under Notification No.41/2007-ST prior to 7.7.2009, he would be governed by the new notification of he has filed refund claim on or after 7.7.2009, even though the exports had taken place prior to 7.7.2009 . There is no dispute that the conditions prescribed in the Board's Circular are satisfied inasmuch as the refund claims had been filed within one year from the relevant date and there were no refund claims filed under the previous Notification. The impugned order reject ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
