TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (7) TMI 903
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s and used on the exported goods, i.e. iron ore fines to China during the period from October, 2007 to December, 2007 under the Notification No.41/2007-ST dated 06.10.2007 as amended. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the refund claim as time barred under the Notification No.41/2007-ST dt.06.10.2007. By the impugned order, the Commr. (Appeals) set aside the Adjudication Order and the appeal of the respondent was allowed to consider the case on merit. 3. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 4. I find that Notification No.41/2007-ST (supra) prescribed limitation of 60 days from the end of quarter which was amended by Notification No.32/2008-ST dated 18.11.2008 and extended the period of limitation to six months from the end of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent, the Department is precluded from challenging the correctness of the said Circulars even on the ground of the same being inconsistent with the statutory provision. The ratio of the judgment of this Court further precludes the right of the Department to file an appeal against the correctness of the binding nature of the Circulars. Therefore, it is clear that so far as the Department is concerned, whatever action it has to take, the same will have to be consistent with the Circular which is in force at the relevant point of time." 8. In the case of CCEx., Vadodara Vs. Dhiren Chemical Industries : 2002 (139) ELT 3 (S.C.), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under : "9. We need to made it clear that, regardless of the interpretation that we....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tself by issue of a circular clarifying that the refund claim for the quarter ending June 2008 can be filed upto 31 December 2008. It was submitted by the learned DR that this clarification was issued in view of the fact that there was time available for filing refund for the quarter ending June 2008 when the notification amending 41/07-S.T. was issued. I am unable to appreciate this view. It has to be noted that when the notification was issued in November, the refund claim for the quarter ending September 2008 could have been filed and time was available. Therefore by extending the benefit of time limit of six months to the quarter ending June 2008 also, the scope of the notification was enlarged. Further I also take note of the fact that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion made by the association to the government to extend the benefit of the incentives in respect of exports made by the period from 1-4-97 to 26-9-97 was rejected by the government. Thereafter the matter reached the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 22 of the order observed as follows : "22. Had the intention of the Government of India been only to extend the said benefit only to the exporters from any other seaport, airport or inland container depot, recourse to the proviso appended to sub-clause (iv) of clause (2) of the notification dated 7-4-1997 could have been taken. But by reason of the notification dated 27-11-1997, one seaport and six inland container depots have been added. The last two words in the catego....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bject sought to be achieved by the legislature may construe the word substitution as an amendment having a prospective effect but such a question does not arise in the instant case. It was submitted on behalf of Revenue that in that case there was no substantive benefit involved. However this is not correct. In view of the fact that by inclusion of Guntur in the list, the exporters who would not have been eligible for 2% of the export value as incentive became eligible for the amount. Similar would be the result by substituting of six months in place of two months in this case also. Therefore the whole issue boils down to as to whether the word substitution has to be treated as existing in the original notification under the circumstances o....