9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 1093X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2008. The said service tax was paid on various taxable services received and used by them for export of Iron Ore fines to their overseas buyers. The Deputy Commissioner issued a Show Cause Notice dated 26-08-2008 proposing to reject the refund claim as the Respondent has failed to substantiate their claim properly. The Dy. Commissioner adjudicated the case vide Order-in-Original dated 07-04-2010, wherein he rejected the refund of Rs.59,05,214/- and allowed the balance refund of Rs.1,22,53,754/-. The department has accepted the sanctioning of refund of Rs.1,22,53,754/- and no appeal was filed. Out of the total disallowed refund of Rs.59,05,214/-, Rs.56,71,926/- was rejected on the ground that the refund claim was filed beyond the period of limitation of 60 days as provided under Para 2(e) of the said notification which is the subject matter of dispute in the present appeal. The remaining refund claim amounting to Rs.2,33,288/- rejected by the adjudicating authority was not disputed by the Respondent. 3. In the Order-in-Original, the refund claim of Rs.56,71,926/- was rejected on the sole ground that the services against the invoices in question were used in respect of goods export ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2008. Hence, the refund claim is otherwise also not barred by limitation. (iv) In the case of Suchitra Components Ltd., Vs. CCE reported in (2007) 208 ELT 321 (SC) (Para 2), it is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that beneficial circular is to be applied retrospectively while oppressive circulars is to be applied prospectively. (v) Different benches of the Tribunal following the said clarificatory Circular No.112/6/2009-ST dated 12-03-2009, has held that extended period of 6 months would apply to quarter-ending March, 2008 and quarter-ending June, 2008. In support of their claim, the Respondent relies on the following decisions of the Tribunal:- (i) CCE Vs. Essar Steel Ltd., reported in (2010) 20 STR 769 (Tri.- Ahmd.) (Para 4.5); (ii) Shankar Packaging Ltd. Vs. CCE reported in 2013 (31) STR 303 (Tri.-Ahmd.); (iii) Moenus Textile Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE 2010 reported in (19) STR 787 (Tri.-Del.) (Para 6); (vi) The Respondent submits that Under Section 37B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994, Board is empowered to issue circulars to mitigate the rigors of law and to grant administrative reliefs which it has granted by issuing Cir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ending Act at all. No doubt, in certain situations, the Court having regard to the purport and object sought to be achieved by the legislature may construe the word "substitution" as an "amendment" having a prospective effect. Therefore, we do not think that it is a universal rule that the word "substitution" necessarily or always connotes two severable steps, that is to say, one of repeal and another of a fresh enactment even if it implies two steps. However, the aforesaid general meaning is to be given effect to, unless it is found that the legislature intended otherwise. Insofar as present case is concerned, as discussed hereinafter, the legislative intent was also to give effect to the amended provision even in respect of those incumbents who were in service as on 1-9-2016. (x) Similar views have been expressed in the case Government of India Vs. Indian Tobacco Association reported in 2005 (187) ELT 162 (SC) . (xi) In view of the above submissions, the Respondent prays that the instant appeal filed by Department may be rejected with consequential relief(s) to them. 5. The Ld. A.R submitted that it is an admitted fact that a portion of the claim was relatable to goods ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods - Clarifications. Circular No. 112/6/2009-S.T., dated 12.3.2009 F. No. 137/84/2008-CX.4 Government of India Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) Central Board of Excise & Customs, New Delhi. Subject:- Filing of claim for refund of service tax paid under Notification No. 41/2007-S.T., dated 6.10.2007- Regarding Notification No. 41/2007-S.T., dated 6.10.2007 allows refund of service tax paid on specified services used for export of goods. To resolve the procedural difficulties arising in implementation of this refund scheme the Board has earlier issued Circulars No. 101/4/2008-S.T., dated 12.5.2008 [2008 (10) S.T.R. C22] and No. 106/9/2008-S.T., dated 11-12-2008 [2009 (13) S.T.R. C3]. 2. The Board has received further reference from field formations and trade seeking clarification on other procedural issues. These issues and the clarification are discussed in the following Table. TABLE Sl. No. Issue Raised Clarification 1. Notification No. 41/2007-S.T. has been amended by notification Nos. 32/2008- S.T., dated 18.11.2008 and 33/2008- S.T., dated 7.12.2008 to (i) extend the limitation period from 60 days from the end of quarter to six month; (ii) to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n. It is his submission that the refund claim was filed beyond the 60 days as stipulated in the notification 41/2007-ST, well before the amendment on 18-11-2008. Hence, according to him it was a dead claim which cannot be revived as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cited above. We do not agree with the interpretation of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court by the Ld. A.R. As per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Uttam Steel Ltd, only a dead claim cannot be revived by a subsequent amendment in the Notification. In the present case, the refund claim filed by the respondent was not a dead claim. The claim was filed well within the time limit permitted in the Notification 41/2007-ST. Only a part of the claim was held as time barred by the adjudicating authority based on his findings that a portion of the claim was relatable to goods exported during the quarter ending December 2007 . We observe that Notification No.32/2008-ST dated 18-11-2008 extended the time limit for filing the refund claim from 60 days to 6 months and validated that portion the refund claim which was filed beyond 60 days. Thus, we observe that there is no merit in the contention of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
