2017 (4) TMI 950

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ent ORDER [ Order Per Sulekha Beevi, C. S. ] 1. The appeal is filed against the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) who upheld the rejection of refund claim. 2. The brief facts of the case are that appellants who are engaged in manufacture of High Carbon Ferro Chrome are also exporting their products. The appellants have filed refund claim in terms of Notification Nos. 40/2007-ST an....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tha, submitted that the appellant is not contesting the refund claim in respect of quarter July 2007 to September 2007 for the reason that the amount is very less. In regard to the refund claim for October 2007 to December 2007, she submitted that the authorities below have wrongly rejected the refund claim on the ground of being time barred. It is pointed out by her that Notification No. 41/2007-....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n the impugned order. He submitted that the appellants have filed the refund claim on 06.05.2008. The amendment brought forth by Notifications Nos. 32/2008-ST and 33/2008-ST extending the limitation period from sixty days to six months does not have any retrospective application. That the notification is silent in this regard. Further, Board Circular No.112/06/2009-ST dated 12.03.2009 also does no....