https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=450451 A refund claim under Notification No. 41/2007-ST relating to export services could not be rejected as time-barred merely because part of the claim was filed after the original 60-day limit. The later Notification No. 32/2008-ST, which extended the filing period to six months, was treated as a beneficial amendment with retrospective effect. On that basis, the procedural delay did not defeat an otherwise maintainable substantive refund claim, and the contested refund was restored in favour of the assessee. en-us Mon, 26 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 06 Mar 2024 08:28:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=450451 A refund claim under Notification No. 41/2007-ST relating to export services could not be rejected as time-barred merely because part of the claim was filed after the original 60-day limit. The later Notification No. 32/2008-ST, which extended the filing period to six months, was treated as a beneficial amendment with retrospective effect. On that basis, the procedural delay did not defeat an otherwise maintainable substantive refund claim, and the contested refund was restored in favour of the assessee. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 26 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=450451