Page 106 - GSTL_14th May 2020_Vol 36_Part 2

208 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 36
73 and 74 of the Act. There is no power vested in the authorities to invoke the
provisions of Section 83 during the pendency of the proceedings instituted under
Section 71(1) of the Act.
6. In fact, there cannot be any proceedings, which could be instituted
under Section 71 of the Act. Section 71 of the Act talks about access to the busi-
ness premises.
7. In such circumstances, the impugned order of attachment under Sec-
tion 83 of the Act is hereby quashed and set aside.
8. It is needless to clarify that the Appeal preferred by the writ-
applicant against the final order of assessment shall be decided in accordance
with law by the Appellate Authority.
9. With the above, this writ application stands disposed of. Direct ser-
vice is permitted.

_______

2020 (36) G.S.T.L. 208 (Del.)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
D.N. Patel, CJ and C. Hari Shankar, J.
KULTAR EXPORTS
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI-I
SERTA No. 30 of 2016, decided on 30-1-2020
1
Refund of Service Tax under Notification No. 41/2007-S.T. - Export of
goods - Taxable services provided by commission agent located outside India -
Substantive requirements of clause 2(e) of Notification No. 41/2007-S.T. of
submitting the requisite documents within the time as stipulated must be ap-
plied strictly - Limitation period to be computed from the date of exports -
Refund claim time-barred as having not been submitted within the prescribed
period of six months from the end of the relevant quarter when the goods have
said to have been exported. [paras 5, 7, 19]
Interpretation of exemption notification - Notification to be strictly
construed - Conditions for taking benefit under notification also to be strictly
interpreted - Wordings of notification when clear, plain language of notifica-
tion be given effect to - Court cannot add or substitute any word while con-
struing notification either to grant or deny exemption. [paras 17, 18]
Appeal dismissed
CASES CITED
Commissioner v. Dilip Kumar and Company — 2018 (361) E.L.T. 577 (S.C.) — Relied on .......... [Para 17]
Commissioner v. Hari Chand Shri Gopal — 2010 (260) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) — Relied on...................... [Para 17]
Commissioner v. Mahaan Dairies — 2004 (166) E.L.T. 23 (S.C.) — Relied on ................................. [Para 17]
Formica India Division v. Collector — 1995 (77) E.L.T. 511 (S.C.) — Referred ............................... [Para 12]
________________________________________________________________________
1 On Appeal from 2017 (52) S.T.R. 503 (Tribunal).
GST LAW TIMES  14th May 2020  106