2013 (12) TMI 1065

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... ORDER Heard both sides. 2. Revenue is in appeal against the PII/PAP/23 TO 24/2010, dated 18-2-2010 whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) has modified the lower adjudicating authority's order. 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the respondents are merchant- exporter of goods manufactured by M/s. Menon Pistons Ltd. and M/s. Menon Piston Rings Pvt. Ltd. They are also holding Service....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....08-S.T., dated 18-11-2008. The learned SDR submitted that for the period July, 2008 to Sept, 2008, the time limit of two months only will apply, which is prior to the date of amendment of Notification. 5. The contention of the learned Counsel is that the time limit prescribed under Section 11B, which has been made applicable to Service Tax would apply in the case and they have filed the refund ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....trictly followed. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Novapan India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad - 1994 (73) E.L.T. 769 (S.C.) and in the case of Liberty Oil Mills (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bombay - 1995 (75) E.L.T. 13 (S.C.). 7. I have carefully considered the submissions and peruse....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... no ambiguity in the case. The respondent claimed benefit of Notification, the same is required to be construed strictly and the refund claim filed beyond the period of two months from April to June, 2008 is hit by limitation of time prescribed in the Notification. So far as the period involved July, 2008 - Sept., 2008 is concerned, the time limit of six months would apply as the period is covered....