TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (9) TMI 334
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 was filed on27-5-08. He submits that Commissioner has taken a view that the amendment of Notification No. 41/07 by issue of a Notification No. 32/08-S.T., dated 18-11-08 which substituted the words 'two months' in the Notification No. 41/07 to six months has to be given the effect retrospectively. He submits that it is settled law that exemption notifications have to be construed strictly and h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 circular clarifying that the refund claim for the quarter ending June 2008 can be filed upto31 December 2008. It was submitted by the learned DR that this clarification was issued in view of the fact that there was time available for filing refund for the quarter ending June 2008 when the notification amending 41/07-S.T. was issued. I am unable to appreciate this view. It has to be noted that whe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....land 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 government to extend the benefit of the incentives in respect of exports made by the period from1-4-97to26-9-97was rejected by the government. Thereafter the matter reached the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 22 of the order observed as follows : "22. Had the intention of the Government of India been only to extend the said benefit only to the exporters from any o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....round 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 legislature may construe the word 'substitution' as an 'amendment' having a prospective effect but such a question does not arise in the instant case." It was submitted on behalf of Revenue that in that case there was no substantive benefit involved. However this is not correct. In view of the fact that by inclusion ofGunturin the list, the exporters who would not have been eligible for 2% of the e....