TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 1100X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en into consideration a subsequent Notification No. 17/2009-ST, dated 07.07.2009, which extended the period for filing refund claims to one year and has observed that the exports undertaken prior to 07.07.2009 and the refund claims being filed within one year would be covered by the notification. The case of respondent is that some of the claims would fall within the time-limit of one year as p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Cenvat credit of Service tax availed and utilised for export of the goods, in terms of Notification No.41/2007-ST, which prescribes a period of 60 days from the end of the quarter during which exports have taken place for filing refund claims. 3. Inasmuch as, the refund claims were filed by the respondent on the expiry of the said period of 60 days provided in the notification, proceedings w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Engineering P. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Ghaziabad reported in 2013 (31) S.T.R.71 (Tri. -Del.), it was observed that when the notification in question prescribes the limitation period, the same cannot be extended by referring to the other general provisions of limitation provided under the Act. Reference can also be made to other Tribunal decision in the case of M/s. Sakay Overse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d within one year would be covered by the notification. He submits that some of the claims would fall within the time-limit of one year as prescribed in the subsequent Notification No. 17/2009-ST, dated 07.07.2009 and covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Knitex Textiles Pvt. Ltd. (supra). At this stage, learned Authorised Representative submits that even if the claims fall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
