TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (11) TMI 700
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hedule to Notification No. 41/2007-S.T. dated 06.10.2007 and used for the above export of goods. This claim was filed on 10.06.2008, beyond the period of 60 days prescribed in clause (e) of para 2 of the notification. The said clause (e) laid down thus: the claim for refund shall be filed on a quarterly basis, within sixty days from the end of the relevant quarter during which the said goods have been exported. The original authority rejected the refund claim as time-barred and its decision eventually came to be upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). Hence the present appeal of the assessee. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the period of limitation for a refund claim under Notification No. 41/2007-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....axable services used for export of goods in the quarter January to March 2008 could very well be filed till 30th September 2008 as per the Board s clarification. Apart from this, the period of limitation prescribed under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act in respect of a refund claim of the above kind is one year from the date of export and therefore the prescription of a shorter period of limitation for a refund claim under Notification No. 41/2007-ST ibid is arbitrary and unjustifiable. 4. Per contra, the learned Superintendent (AR) submits that the amending Notification No. 32/2008-ST dated 18.11.2008 came into force on the date of its publication in the official gazette and did not have retrospective effect. It is further s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gazette. It did not expressly provide for retrospective operation of the amendment. As per the well-established principle of interpretation of exemption notifications, nothing can be added to, or deleted from, or otherwise altered. The notification has to be construed in terms of the plain meaning of the words and expressions used therein. Prior to 18.11.2008, clause (e) of para 2 of Notification No. 41/2007-ST prescribed 60 days from the end of the relevant quarter during which the said goods have been exported. On and after 18.11.2008, the prescribed period is 6 months, which cannot be given retrospective effect inasmuch as any legislative intent to give such retrospective effect was not expressed in the amending notification. Therefor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ication was amended by another Notification No. 32/2008-ST vide which the period for filing refund claim was beyond six months. The appellant relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ONGC Ltd. Vs. CCE (supra). In this case license was amended retrospectively. In view of this, benefit of Notification was extended by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the case of Gold Coin Health Food Private Ltd. (supra) it provides in the amending provision that the same is clarificatory in nature. Facts of the present case are different. In the present case amendment was not clarificatory in nature nor retrospective. The amendment to the Notification is prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have retrospec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....w. We entirely agree with the view of the Tribunal that even if the Central Government corrected its error about condition No. 2 from 2.9.1978 by issuing a fresh Notification, the earlier colour specification requirement remained operative for imports made by the concerned importers prior to 2.9.1978 when the earlier Notification dated 2.8.1976 was holding the field. The latter Notification cannot be said to be merely clarificatory Notification nor can it have any retrospective effect. It is a fresh Notification laying down fresh condition deleting the earlier condition No. 2 about the colour specification. Hence this submission is of no avail to the learned counsel for the appellants. I would like to follow the above view to hold....