TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 1508X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e year from the date of export of the goods. Therefore, the appellant would be eligible for the benefit of refund under the aforesaid Notification subject to satisfaction of other conditions stipulated in the Notification. Appellant is eligible for the benefit of refund claim filed under Notification No. 41/2007 as amended by Notification No. 17/2007 and the time bar aspect is not attracted. However, the appellant has to satisfy that they have fulfilled the other conditions stipulated in the Notification. Therefore, the matter is remanded back to the original adjudicating authority only for satisfying that the appellant has fulfilled the other terms and conditions stipulated in Notification No. 41/2007 and the time-bar issue will have no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n one year from the date of export of the goods. The amended provisions would apply and the rejection of the claim on account of time-bar is not sustainable in law. The learned counsel relies on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Uttam Steel Ltd. vs. Union of India 2003 (158) ELT 274 (Bom.) wherein a similar issue arose and the Hon'ble High Court held that when the amended statute alters the existing practice and procedure of enforcing the substantive rights, then the amended procedure would apply for enforcement of the substantive rights existing on the date when the amended provisions came into force. Accordingly, it was held that limitation of one year provided by amendment to Section 11B w.e.f. 12/05/2000 wo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e filed till Dec 08? 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 Mar-Jun 08 could be filed till 31 st Dec 08. Thus, when the time limit was extended from 60 days to six months, the Board had clarified that if the refund claim is filed within six months, the assessee would be eligible for benefit of the same subject to satisfaction of the other conditions. The same logic and clarification would apply when the time-limit is extended from six months to one year. In view o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the jurisdictional High Court, in the case of Uttam Steel Ltd. (supra) has held that when procedure and practice are amended they have to be amended retrospectively and the benefit allowed if the procedures are satisfied. This Tribunal in the case of Sandoz Polymers Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has also held the same view. Further, the CBEC in Circular dated 12/03/2009 cited supra, have also held that so long as the refund claims is filed within the extended period of time provided for in the Notification, the assessee would be eligible for the benefit of refund, subject to satisfaction of other conditions stipulated in the Notification. 6. Following the above decisions, I hold that, in the present case also, the appellant is eligible for the benefi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
