Strict interpretation of refund notifications bars retrospective coverage unless expressly provided for omitted export input services.

Refund of service tax on input services used for exports was confined to services specifically covered by Notification No. 41/2007-ST as it stood on the relevant date. Services not originally specified were held ineligible, and the later amendment by Notification No. 17/2009-ST could not be applied retrospectively because retrospective operation must be expressly stated. The rejection of refund for the excluded services was therefore sustained, with the notification interpreted strictly according to its operative terms at the time the claim arose.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim of service tax on input services used for export was admissible under Notification No. 41/2007-ST dated 06.10.2007, and whether the later amendment by Notification No. 17/2009-ST dated 07.07.2009 could operate retrospectively to cover services not originally specified.

Analysis: The refund was rejected to the extent it related to services not specified in the governing notification at the time the claim arose. The omission could not be cured by the subsequent amending notification because retrospective effect cannot be assumed unless the notification expressly so provides. The appellate order therefore correctly applied the notification as it stood on the relevant date.

Conclusion: The refund claim was not admissible for the excluded services, and the rejection was sustained in favour of the Revenue.

---