HAVELLS INDIA LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts are giving rise to these appeals are as under:

(2.) 1.1 The appellants are manufacturer of wires and cables. They were also exporting wires and cables. They were claiming refund of Service Tax paid on the services used in connection with export of the goods under Notification No. 41/2007 and its successor Notification. The period of dispute in Appeal No. ST/56886/2013 is from January, 2009 to March, 2009 and the refund amount involved is Rs. 4,51,460/ - (two refund claims). The period of dispute in respect of Appeal No. ST/56887/2013 is from April, 2009 to August, 2009 and total refund amount involved is Rs. 6,83,834/ - (one refund claim). The refund claims, in respect of the period from January, 2009 to March, 2009 had been filed on 6 -11 -2009 and 29 -10 -2009 while the refund claim in respect of the period from April, 2009 to August, 2009 had been filed on 30 -10 -2009. Both these refund claims had been filed under Notification No. , dated 7 -7 -2009, as at the time of filing of refund claims, the earlier Notification No. , dated 6 -10 -2007 had been superseded by the new Notification No. , dated 7 -7 -2009. Here, it may also be mentioned that in the Notification No. , initially the limitation period for filing of refund claim was sixty days from the 'relevant date', but the same had been increased to 6 months from the relevant date by amending Notification No. , dated 18 -11 -2008. This limitation period had been enhanced to one year from the 'relevant date' the Notification No. , dated 7 -7 -2009.

(3.) MS . Shewta Bector, ld. Departmental Representative, defended the impugned order by reiterating the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) and emphasized that Notification No. being prospective, cannot be given retrospective effect, and hence the Notification No. issued on 7 -7 -2009 would not be applicable in respect of exports made during the period prior to 7 -7 -2009, that refund claims would, therefore, be governed by the limitation period prescribed in Notification No. , that services like inland haulage, forwarding charges, etc., are not covered by the Notification No. and hence rejection of refund in respect of these services have been correctly upheld. She therefore, pleaded that there is no infirmity in the impugned order.