Amended refund limitation under service tax notification required fresh consideration, with the claim remitted for de novo adjudication.

The refund claim under the service tax refund notification was rejected only on limitation, but the amendment substituting "sixty days" with "six months" had to be considered for pending proceedings. Because the lower authorities did not examine the amended notification or the circular, the Tribunal set aside the order and remitted the matter for fresh adjudication. The refund claim was therefore left for de novo determination by the adjudicating authority after hearing the claimant and applying the amended time limit.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim filed by a merchant exporter was barred by limitation under Notification No. 41/2007-S.T., and whether the subsequent amendment substituting the words "sixty days" with "six months" required reconsideration of the claim.

Analysis: The refund claim had been rejected solely on the ground that it was filed beyond sixty days. The amended notification substituted the original time limit of sixty days with six months, and the Tribunal held that this change had an on the pending proceedings. As the lower authorities had not considered the amended notification and the related circular when deciding the matter, the issue required fresh examination by the adjudicating authority. The matter was therefore sent back for reconsideration in accordance with the amended notification and after following principles of natural justice.

Conclusion: The refund claim was not finally decided on merits and the question of limitation was left for fresh determination by the adjudicating authority.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the refund dispute was remitted for de novo consideration under the amended service tax refund notification.

---