TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (1) TMI 681
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of refund. The Appellant thus applied for refund of input services used in connection with the exports for various quarters. 3. The ld. adjudicating authority observed that in respect of some of the shipping bills, the invoices pertaining to the services received have been raised after the exports were completed and so, the services for which the refund has been claimed were not relatable to the export of goods in the said quarter. Hence, the ld. adjudicating authority rejected the said refund claims on the ground of limitation. 3.1. On appeal, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), vide the impugned order, has allowed the refund claimed on Education Cess and Secondary and Higher Education Cess and has rejected the remaining refund claims on the ground of limitation. Aggrieved against the impugned orders rejecting the refunds, the appellant has filed these appeals. 4. The details of the appeals filed by the appellant along with the amount of refunds rejected during the respective periods, are furnished in the table given below: - Period APRİL-08 TO JUNE-08 JULY-08 TO SEPT-08 APRİL-09 TO JUNE-09 APRİL-09 TO JUNE-09 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....refund claim on quarterly basis within a period of sixty days from the end of the relevant quarter. However, in the present cases, on many occasions, the service providers had not provided the relevant invoices to the exporter within sixty days' time. In this regard, the Appellant submits that realising the difficulties faced by exporters, the Government of India vide Notification No. 32/2008-S.T. dated 18.11.2008 extended the period of limitation for filing such refund claims from "sixty days" to "six months". Accordingly, the appellant submits that the delay in getting the invoices within the sixty days' time cannot be a ground for rejection of the refund claims on the ground of limitation. 5.1. The Appellant also points out that this Tribunal has already decided this issue in their own case for an earlier period and allowed the refund to the Appellant under Notification No. 41/2007-S.T. vide Final Order No. 75380 of 2024 dated 26.02.2024 in Service Tax Appeal No. 174 of 2012 [CESTAT, Kolkata]. 5.2. Accordingly, the Appellant has prayed for allowing the refund as claimed by them. 6. The Ld. Authorised Representative of the Revenue filed a written submission where....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rued to have been used in the export of goods during the period April 2009-to June 2009; Thus the claim to the tune of Rs.11,951/- cannot be allowed. (iii) (a) Order-in-Original No. R-149/RKL-11/2010 dated 15.12.2010 [Appeal No. ST/70237/2013] (period-April 2008 to June 2008) There are repeated claims in respect of some invoices mentioned at Sl. No. 94 and 96-100 of the table as reflected at running page no. 19 of the Order-in-Original. So, Refund claim amounting to Rs.1,67,801/- against the aforesaid 6(six) invoices are to be disallowed. (b) The Bill/invoices Nos 881142,881114 and PTPL/066/08-09 (mentioned at Sl. No. 11,14 & 24 of the table at Order-in-Original) are not with respect of the related quarter. Hence the claim of Rs.9690/- is not to be allowed. (iv) (a) Order-in-Original No. R-111/RKL-11/2011 dated 19.04.2011 [Appeal No. ST/70238/2013] (period July 2008 to September 2008) The invoices issued by M/s GEO CHEM LABORATORIES PVT LTD as shown at sl. No. 15 to 17 and 33 to 38 of the table of the mentioned Order-in-Original the service has been provided with relation to Vessel M.V. Majestic Star which is not the specified vessel through which the goo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arter ending date. We also observe that the substantial benefit of refund cannot be denied merely on account of non-fulfilment of procedural conditions prescribed under the said Notification. This view has been taken by this Tribunal vide the Final Order No.76710/2023 dated 20.09.2023 in the case of Commissioner of C.G.S.T. & Central Excise, Jamshedpur v. M/s. Rungta Mines Ltd. [2023 (9) TMI 1093 - CESTAT, Kolkata] wherein it has been held that the extension of the time limit for filing the refund claim from "60 days" to "six months" being a piece of beneficial legislation, has to be considered as a retrospective amendment. The relevant part of the said decision is reproduced below: - "12. From the Notification No.32/2008-ST dated 18-11-2008 cited above, we observe that the notification has extended the time limit for filing of refund claims under Notification 41/2007 dated 06.10.2007, from 60 days to 6 months. Board Circular No.112/6/2009-ST dated 12-03-2009 has clarified the doubts with specific examples. The Circular categorically states that in view of the extended time limit, the refund claim for the quarter March-June 2008 can be filed till 31st December 2008. In the....