TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 903X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r ending March, 2008 filed under N/N. 41/2007-ST as amended by N/N. 32/2008, the limitation would be six months and effective retrospectively - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - S. T. Appeal No.79/10 - F/76350/2017 - Dated:- 20-7-2017 - Shri P. K. Choudhary, Judicial Member Shri K. Chowdhury, Supdt. (A.R.) for the Revenue Shri Harsh Shukla, Advocate for the Respondent ORDER Per: Shri P. K. Choudhary This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal No.01/ST/BBSR-II/2010 dated 21.01.2010 passed by Commr. (Appeals) of Central Excise, Customs S.Tax, BBSR II. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent filed a refund claim of service tax of ₹ 11,27,903/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Notification to give effect retrospectively. It is also submitted that in view of the clear wordings of the said Notification, the time limit of 6 months are applicable in respect of the refund claims filed after 18.11.2008. 6. The ld.Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the Board's Circular is binding on the Department and he referred to various case laws. He also submitted that the issue is covered by various decisions in favour of the Department. 7. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Paper Products Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Central Excise : 1999 (112) ELT 765 (SC) held as under: 5. It is clear from the above said pronouncements of this Court that, apart from the fact that the Circulars i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ome of the case laws are reproduced below: (i) Moenus Textile Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE : 2010 (19) STR 787 (Tri.Del.) ; (ii) CCE Vs. Essar Steel Ltd. : 2010 (20) STR 769 (Tri.-Ahmd.); (iii) Jindal Stainless Ltd. Vs. CCE : 2010 (19) STR 732 (Tri.) ; (iv) ACE Exports Vs. CCE : 2010 (19) STR 405 (Tri.-Bang.). 11. I find that in the case of CCE Vs.Essar Steel Ltd. (Supra), the Tribunal on an identical issue dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The relevant portion of the said decision is reproduced below : 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 notificatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the scope of notification and also extended the benefit 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 mentioned in the notification dated 7-4-97. However on a representation made by the association, an amendment to the notification was made in November 1997 whereby for the words Ludhiana Guntur, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lation 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 container depots as specified in the notification dated 7-4-1997 but also to those exporters, who had been exporting from such seaports or inland depots as specified in the amended notification dated 27-11-1997. 5. On this ground 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
