New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (11) TMI 221 - CESTAT MUMBAI

2015 (11) TMI 221 - CESTAT MUMBAI - TMI - Denial of refund claim - whether the time period extended for filing the refund claim by Notification 32/2008-ST is applicable in this case or otherwise - Held that:- Same issue arose and Tribunal [2011 (7) TMI 748 - CESTAT, MUMBAI] went into great detail as to what will be the effect of the substitution of words as indicated in Notification 32/2008-ST for increasing the period of filing the refund claim from ‘60 days’ to ‘6 months’. - Bench has not held .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

be set aside - Decided in favour of assessee. - Appeal No. ST/207/10 - Dated:- 21-7-2015 - Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) And Mr. C.J. Mathew, Member (Technical) For the Petitioner : Shri L. Badrinarayan, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri R.K. Das, Deputy Commissioner (AR) ORDER Per: M.V. Ravindran This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. CEX/Goa/VSK/01/2010 dated 21.01.2010. 2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that appellant filed refund claim of ₹ 1, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the end of the quarter as indicated in the Notification. His further submission is that revised limitation period was introduced by Notification No.32/2008 dated 18.11.2008 and he reads the same to submit that the said Notification talks about substitution of words 60 days by the words six months which would indicate that Notification 41/2007-ST dated 06.10.2007 has to be read as granting a time of six months from the end of the quarter for filing the refund claim. He would rely upon the decisio .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

11 passed by this Bench on the same issue wherein it is held that the period of 60 days has to be computed as per Notification 41/2007. 5. We have considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the records. 6. It is undisputed that appellant is eligible for refund of the amount of service tax which has been paid by him to the service providers and utilized for manufacturing / export of the goods. It is also undisputed that the goods were exported in December 2007 and the refund claim .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tail as to what will be the effect of the substitution of words as indicated in Notification 32/2008-ST for increasing the period of filing the refund claim from 60 days to 6 months . We reproduce the findings as recorded at para 4 and 5. 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 n .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ember, the refund claim for the quarter ending September 2008 could have been filed and time was available. Therefore by extending the benefit of time limit of six months to the quarter ending June 2008 also, the scope of the notification was enlarged. Further I also take note of the fact that clarification was issued by the Board since it was sought in respect of the refund claim for the period ending June 2008. I do not know what view Board would have taken in case a clarification was sought w .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

fit of amendment retrospectively but only in respect of a particular quarter. It is the submission of the respondents that in view of the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Indian Tobacco Association, the word substituted would mean that the notification benefit will have to be extended to them also. In the case of Indian Tobacco Association, notification was issued extending the benefit of 2% incentives in respect of exports made from Inland container depots and Guntur was not .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

eached the Honble Supreme Court and Honble 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 other seaport, airport or inland container depot, recourse to the proviso appended to sub-clause (iv) of clause (2) of the notification dated 7-4-1997 could have been taken. But by reason of the notification dated 27-11-1997, one seaport and six inland container depots have bee .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

urpose of extension of the benefit but the newly added seaports or inland container depots had been made a part of the original notification. The Union of India while making a subordinate legislation had advisedly used the word substitution in place of the word addition . The object and purport of the subsequent notification issued by the Union of India was, thus, to grant the same benefit which had been granted to the exporters who were registered at the other seaports, airports or inland conta .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ng 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 of Guntur in the list, the exporters who would not have been eligible for 2% of the export value as incentive became eligi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version