Strict compliance with exemption-cum-refund notification limits governs service tax refund claims, and later amendments apply prospectively.

Refund claims for service tax on input services used in export of goods had to comply strictly with Notification No. 41/2007-ST, including the prescribed limitation period, because the notification operated as an exemption-cum-refund mechanism. The later amendment in Notification No. 32/2008-ST was treated as prospective and could not be applied to claims already filed for earlier periods. The CBEC clarification did not assist the claimant, as the reference to a March-June quarter was regarded as erroneous and did not create a substantive entitlement. Claims filed beyond time were therefore inadmissible.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund claims for service tax on input services used for export of goods, filed beyond the time limit prescribed in Notification No. 41/2007-ST, were admissible in view of the later amendment in Notification No. 32/2008-ST and the CBEC clarification.

Analysis: Notification No. 41/2007-ST operated as an exemption notification implemented through a refund mechanism and prescribed the procedure as well as the time limit for claiming the benefit. Compliance with the stipulated conditions, including limitation, was necessary for entitlement to refund. The later amendment introduced by Notification No. 32/2008-ST was held to be prospective and therefore could not be applied to refund claims already filed for earlier periods. The clarification relied upon did not assist the appellant because the reference to a March-June quarter was treated as erroneous, and no benefit could be derived from that mistake.

Conclusion: The refund claims filed beyond the prescribed time limit were not admissible, and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Conditions and limitation periods in an exemption-cum-refund notification must be strictly satisfied, and a subsequent amendment operates prospectively unless clearly clarificatory.

---