TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 700X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o aid to the appellant who exported goods in the quarter January to March 2008 and filed refund claim on 10.06.2008. The subject amendment can, by no stretch of imagination, be capable of enabling the appellant to file refund claim beyond the prescribed period of 60 days inasmuch as the amendment itself came into effect after the period of 6 months from the last date of the quarter January to March 2008 - against assessee. - Service Tax Appeal No. 1999/2010 - - - Dated:- 10-10-2012 - SHRI P.G. CHACKO J. Appearance Mr. R. Dakshinamurthy, advocate for the appellant Mrs. Sabrina Cano, Superintendent (AR), for the Revenue This appeal of the assessee is directed against rejection of a refund claim. 2. Having exp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 33/2008-ST dated 07.12.2008 to- (i) extend the limitation period from 60 days from the end of quarter to six month; (ii) to omit the condition of non-availment of drawback. Whether, in view of amended conditions, refund for the quarter March-June 2008 would be allowed to be filed till December 2008. It is clarified that consequent upon revision of limitation period, any refund claim that is filed within such revised limitation period would be admissible if it is otherwise in order. Therefore, refund claims of service tax on specified taxable services used for exports of goods made in the quarter March-June 2008 could be filed till 31st December 2008. It is argued that, if a refund claim in respect of specified taxable servic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nst the above decision of the Tribunal. However, it is fairly conceded that the appellate court has not stayed the operation of the Tribunal s decision vide LGW Ltd. Vs. Asst. Commissioner of Service Tax [2011 (21) S.T.R. 222 (Cal.)]. 5.1. I have given careful consideration to the submissions. The moot question debated before me is whether the extension of period of limitation from 60 days to 6 months in respect of a refund claim under Notification No. 41/2007 ST has retrospective effect so as to protect the appellant s refund claim dated 10.06.2008. This issue was discussed threadbare in the case of LGW Ltd. (supra). The operation of the Tribunal s decision has not been stayed by the appellate court. I have also examined the issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ertinent to note that the Hon ble Supreme Court s judgment in Bombay Oil Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India [1995 (77) E.L.T. 32 (S.C)] and Collector Vs. Doaba Co-operative Sugar Mills [1988 (37) E.L.T. 478 (S.C)] were relied on by the Tribunal in LGW case. The said judgments of the Apex Court, which had a strong bearing on the issue, were not cited before the Tribunal in Essar Steel case. The ratio of the decision in LGW case is to be gathered from para 4 of the judgment, which reads as follows: In this case the Notification No. 41/2007-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 export ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Hon ble Supreme Court held as under: Before parting we may note one submissions of the learned counsel. They submitted that laying down of condition No. 2 in Notification dated 2.8.1976 was a clear error on the part of the Central Government which was corrected by them 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 submissions has observed in paragraph 35 of the judgment that the colour specification was an error ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
