TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 232X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rior to December 2007, the refund claim filed by the Appellant on 30.05.2008 was barred by limitation. The Government has realized the difficulty of the exporters and issued Notification No.32/2008-ST dated 18.11.2008 extending the time period for filing the refund claim from 60 days to six months . It is observed that this beneficial notification can be applied retrospectively so as to allow the refund applications filed within the period of six months from the quarter ending. It is also observed that the substantial benefit of refund cannot be denied on account of non-fulfilment of the procedural conditions prescribed in the notification. This view has been taken by this Tribunal vide the Final Order No.76710/2023 dated 20.09.2023 in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CGST CENTRAL EXCISE, JAMSHEDPUR VERSUS M/S RUNGTA MINES LTD. [ 2023 (9) TMI 1093 - CESTAT KOLKATA] wherein this Tribunal has held that the extension of the time limit for filing the refund claim from 60 days to six months being a piece of beneficial legislation, has to be considered as a retrospective amendment. The Appellant is eligible for the refund of Rs.12,14,012/- which was rejected on the ground of limitation - appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1/2007, the refund applications for any quarter have to be filed within 60 days from the end of the relevant quarter in which the corresponding exports have been made. 2.1 In the present case, the Appellant has filed the refund application for the quarter January 2008 to March 2008 on 30.05.2008. However, upon examination, the ld. adjudicating authority has noticed that some of the shipping bills/invoices were actually pertaining to the quarter ending December 2007 and accordingly he has held that such part of the claim filed was beyond the period of sixty days prescribed in the Notification No. 41/2007. 2.2 The appellant preferred an appeal before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals), who vide order impugned herein has rejected the refund amount of Rs.12,14,012/- while sanctioning the refund of Rs.2,81,468/- to the appellant. Aggrieved against the rejection of the refund to the extent of Rs.12,14,012/- on the ground of limitation, the Appellant filed this appeal. 2.3 For the sake of convenience, the details of the refund claim pertaining to the present proceedings are tabularized below : - Refund claimed initially Rs.94,56,051/- Refund claim later revised Rs.96,63,788/- Refund claim all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... liberally. 3.1 The Appellant cited the decision of this Tribunal vide the Final Order No.76710/2023 dated 20.09.2023 in the case of Commissioner of C.G.S.T. Central Excise, Jamshedpur v. M/s. Rungta Mines Ltd. [2023 (9) TMI 1093 CESTAT, Kolkata] wherein this Tribunal has held that the extension of the limitation period for filing a refund claim from 60 days to six months being a piece of beneficial legislation, has to be considered as a retrospective amendment. Thus, they contended that the refund claim amounting to Rs.12,14,012/-, rejected by the original Authority on the ground of limitation, has to be treated as being covered under the Notification No.41/2007. Accordingly, they prayed for allowing their appeal. 4. The Ld. Authorized Representative appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that the refund claim has been filed beyond the six months time prescribed in the Notification No. 41/2007. Hence, both the authorities rejected part of the refund claims filed beyond the period of 60 days. Accordingly, he supported the impugned order rejecting the refund claim. 5. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 6. We observe that Notification No.41/2007-ST dated 06.10.20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has been taken by this Tribunal vide the Final Order No.76710/2023 dated 20.09.2023 in the case of Commissioner of C.G.S.T. Central Excise, Jamshedpur v. M/s. Rungta Mines Ltd. [2023 (9) TMI 1093 CESTAT, Kolkata] wherein this Tribunal has held that the extension of the time limit for filing the refund claim from 60 days to six months being a piece of beneficial legislation, has to be considered as a retrospective amendment. The relevant part of the said decision is reproduced below: - 12. From the Notification No.32/2008-ST dated 18-11-2008 cited above, we observe that the notification has extended the time limit for filing of refund claims under Notification 41/2007 dated 06.10.2007, from 60 days to 6 months. Board Circular No.112/6/2009-ST dated 12-03-2009 has clarified the doubts with specific examples. The Circular categorically states that in view of the extended time limit, the refund claim for the quarter March-June 2008 can be filed till 31st December 2008. In the present case, the Appellant has filed the refund for the quarter January 2008 to March 2008, within the stipulated period of 60 days. However, on verification of the documents, the adjudicating authority observed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
