TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (8) TMI 667
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... ORDER The two refund claims filed for the quarters ending September 2008 and December 2008 in the month of September 2009 have been rejected on the ground that both of them should have been filed within six months as per the provisions of Notification No. 41/2007, dated 6-10-2007 which provides for refund of service tax paid on various services in the case of export of goods. 2. The ld. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he ld. A.R. would submit that the notification is not a notification providing for refund but is an exemption notification. Therefore the notification existing as on the date of export has to be taken into account for examining the claim for exemption and not the notification existing at the time of filing the refund claim which is basically a procedural part. He also submits that Notification No.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... relied upon by the ld. counsel may not be applicable and there is some force in the arguments advanced by the ld. A.R., in the view of the opinion taken by one of the Commissioners in Trade Notice No. 7/2010 dated 4-3-2010, I consider it appropriate that the benefit should be extended to the appellant in this case also. The paragraph 2 of the trade notice issued by Commissioner, Dibrugarh is rep....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e, Department of Revenue, Tax Research Unit, New Delhi, dated the 1st January, 2010]". 4. It may be seen that in terms of the paragraph 2 of the trade notice reproduced above, the submissions of the ld. counsel that except for a portion of the claim prior to more than one year from the date of receipt of the claim by the Revenue, the balance amounts claimed as refund would be admissible has ....