TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Textile company wins appeal on time-barred refund claims under Notification 41/2007</h1> <h3>RAYMOND LTD Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI-III</h3> RAYMOND LTD Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI-III - 2015 (38) S.T.R. 441 (Tri. - Mumbai) Issues:1. Time-barred refund claim under Notification No. 41/2007.2. Interpretation of amended provisions extending time period for filing refund claims.3. Application of judicial precedents and circulars in determining eligibility for refund claim.Issue 1: Time-barred refund claim under Notification No. 41/2007The appellant, a textile division company, filed refund claims for service tax paid towards manufacturing exported textile products for the quarter October-December, 2008. The claim was rejected as time-barred by the adjudicating authority, leading to an appeal to the lower appellate authority and subsequently to the CESTAT Mumbai.Issue 2: Interpretation of amended provisions extending time period for filing refund claimsThe appellant argued that the time period for filing refund claims under Notification No. 41/2007 was extended to one year from the date of export of goods, as per Notification No. 17/2009. They relied on judicial decisions, including a High Court case and a Tribunal case, to support their contention that amended provisions should apply retrospectively. The appellant emphasized that as long as refund claims are filed within one year from the date of export, the benefit of the notification should be extended.Issue 3: Application of judicial precedents and circulars in determining eligibility for refund claimThe CESTAT Mumbai considered the appellant's arguments in light of the judicial precedents cited, including the decision of the jurisdictional High Court and a Tribunal case. Additionally, a circular issued by the Board clarified the implications of extending the time limit for filing refund claims. The CESTAT Mumbai held that the appellant was eligible for the benefit of the refund claim filed under the amended notification, provided they satisfied other conditions stipulated in the notification.In conclusion, the CESTAT Mumbai allowed the appeal, remanding the matter back to the original adjudicating authority to ensure compliance with the terms and conditions of the notification. The time-bar aspect was deemed not applicable, emphasizing the retrospective application of amended provisions and the importance of fulfilling all conditions for eligibility for the refund claim.
TaxTMI 