TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (11) TMI 221
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sed for export of goods. The said refund claim was rejected by both the lower authorities on the ground that the goods were exported in December 2007 and refund claim was filed on 23.05.2008 which is beyond the period of 'sixty days' as stated in the Notification No. 41/2007-ST dated 06.10.2007. 3. Learned Counsel who took us through the entire case records and submits that the refund claim was filed within 60 days from the end of the quarter as indicated in the Notification. His further submission is that revised limitation period was introduced by Notification No.32/2008 dated 18.11.2008 and he reads the same to submit that the said Notification talks about substitution of words '60 days' by the words 'six months' which would indicate ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onths from the date of last quarter was considered by the Tribunal in the case of Essar Steel (supra). In similar set of facts. In that case the same issue arose and Tribunal went into great detail as to what will be the effect of the substitution of words as indicated in Notification 32/2008-ST for increasing the period of filing the refund claim from '60 days' to '6 months'. We reproduce the findings as recorded at para 4 and 5. "4. I have considered the submissions made by both the sides. There can be no dispute that exemption notifications have to be construed strictly and liberal construction enlarging the term and scope of notification is not permissible. However in this also, the notification has been enlarged by the Board ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in respect of a particular quarter. It is the submission of the respondents that in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Indian Tobacco Association, the word 'substituted' would mean that the notification benefit will have to be extended to them also. In the case of Indian Tobacco Association, notification was issued extending the benefit of 2% incentives in respect of exports made from Inland container depots and Guntur was not mentioned in the notification dated 7-4-97. However on a representation made by the association, an amendment to the notification was made in November 1997 whereby for the words 'Ludhiana & Guntur, Ludhiana, Hyderabad, Nagpur, Faridabad, Guntur and Varanasi were substituted. The represen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....'. The object and purport of the subsequent notification issued by the Union of India was, thus, to grant the same benefit which had been granted to the exporters who were registered at the other seaports, airports or inland container depots as specified in the notification dated 7-4-1997 but also to those exporters, who had been exporting from such seaports or inland depots as specified in the amended notification dated 27-11-1997." 5. On this ground it was claimed by the respondent that in this case also, the substitution of words 'six months' has to be treated as existing in the original notification. However I take note of the fact that in para 26 of the very same decision, Hon'ble Court observed that the 'the Court having rega....