9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 950X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i, C. S. ] 1. The appeal is filed against the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) who upheld the rejection of refund claim. 2. The brief facts of the case are that appellants who are engaged in manufacture of High Carbon Ferro Chrome are also exporting their products. The appellants have filed refund claim in terms of Notification Nos. 40/2007-ST and 41/2007-ST for an amount of Rs. 6,12,082/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sting the refund claim in respect of quarter July 2007 to September 2007 for the reason that the amount is very less. In regard to the refund claim for October 2007 to December 2007, she submitted that the authorities below have wrongly rejected the refund claim on the ground of being time barred. It is pointed out by her that Notification No. 41/2007-ST has been amended by Notification No. 32/200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llants have filed the refund claim on 06.05.2008. The amendment brought forth by Notifications Nos. 32/2008-ST and 33/2008-ST extending the limitation period from sixty days to six months does not have any retrospective application. That the notification is silent in this regard. Further, Board Circular No.112/06/2009-ST dated 12.03.2009 also does not clarify that amendment has retrospective appli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed upon the judgment in the case of Essar Steel Ltd., (supra) where the Tribunal has gone into the specific aspect whether the amendment has a retrospective application. The issue is held in favor of assessee. In view thereof, following the said judgments, I hold that the rejection of refund claim for the quarter October 2007 to December 2007 is unjustified. The impugned order to the extent of rej ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
