TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (3) TMI 660
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Sh. Kultar Singh against the judgment and Final Order dated 9th October, 2015 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter "CESTAT") in Service Tax Appeal No. ST/3965 of 2012 whereby CESTAT upheld the Order passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Delhi - I dated 6th September 2012. 2. This Appeal was admitted by this Hon'ble Court vide Order dated 10th February, 2017, whereby the following question of law was framed:- "Did the CESTAT fell into error in holding that the Appellant was not entitled to refund on account of bar of limitation in the facts and circumstances of the case?" 3. The Appellant M/s Kultar Exports is the exporters of general merchant goods like fa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the conditions as required under Notification No. 41/2007 - ST, and thus dismissed the application. 6. The Appellant thereafter, filed an Appeal against the same, which was dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide Order dated 6th December, 2009 noting the non-compliance with the substantive requirements of clause 2 (e) of the Notification No. 41/2007-STof submitting the requisite documents within the time as stipulated in the said notification, and thus being time barred. 7. Moreover, the Commissioner has noted that as per the Circular No. 112/06/2009 - ST dated 12th March 2009 wherein it has been so clarified that the limitation period is to be computed form the date of the exports, the application by the Appellant was time barred a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ces reliance on Saraswati Sugar Mills v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi - III 2011 (270) E.L.T. 465 (S.C.), stating that the conditions, as provided for, in the Exemption Notification have to strictly interpreted and non-compliance of the same would disentitle the Appellant from the benefits as provided thereunder. 16. Furthermore, Mr. Amit Bansal contends that the time limit as provided for, are not only procedural requirements but substantive requirements which should have been complied with and as the Appellant's claim had been filed after the prescribed period, and thus Appeal was rightly rejected by CESTAT. 17. It is trite, that while interpreting exemption notifications, such notifications have to be interpreted, stricto sens....