Page 108 - GSTL_14th May 2020_Vol 36_Part 2

210 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 36
of the Notification No. 41/2007-S.T. of submitting the requisite documents with-
in 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-S.T., 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 applica-
tion by the Appellant was time-barred and thus did not comply with the sub-
stantive condition given in the Notification.
8. The Appellant challenged the aforementioned Order-in-Appeal be-
fore CESTAT, which, by its Final Order and judgment dated 9th October, 2015
upheld the Order by Commissioner (Appeals) and held that the Appellant’s ap-
plication was time-barred.
9. Against which, the present appeal has been preferred.
10. We have heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant, Ms. Anjali Gup-
ta, and Mr. Amit Bansal, Senior Standing Counsel, for the Respondent, at length.
11. Ms. Anjali Gupta, Learned Counsel for the Appellant contends that
the refund claim was filed within one year of the date of payment of service tax
as required by Section 11B of the Act, was complied with and thus, the Appel-
lants claim cannot be denied.
12. Ms. Anjali Gupta contends that substantial benefit cannot be denied
on the ground of mere technical breaches. She places reliance on Formica India
Division v. Collector of Central Excise [1995 (77) E.L.T. 511].
13. Moreover, the Counsel contends that the Appellant’s claim should
not be disallowed merely because of the non-compliance of technical grounds
when the Appellant has complied with the substantial requirements of the Noti-
fication No. 41/2007-S.T.
14. Per contra, Mr. Amit Bansal, Senior Standing Counsel, for the Re-
spondent has argued the Notification has to be treated as part of the Statute in
light of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and must be strictly inter-
preted.
15. Mr. Amit Bansal places reliance on Saraswati Sugar Mills v. Commis-
sioner of Central Excise, Delhi-III [2011 (270) E.L.T. 465 (S.C.)], stating that the con-
ditions, as provided for, in the Exemption Notification have to strictly interpret-
ed and non-compliance of the same would disentitle the Appellant from the ben-
efits as provided thereunder.
16. Furthermore, Mr. Amit Bansal contends that the time-limit as pro-
vided 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 noti-
fications have to be interpreted, stricto sensu [Commissioner of Customs (Import),
Mumbai v. Dilip Kumar & Co. (2018) 9 SCC 1 = 2018 (361) E.L.T. 577 (S.C.)]; Com-
missioner of Central Excise v. Hari Chand Shri Gopal & Others (2011) 1 SCC 236 =
2010 (260) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.); Commissioner of Central Excise v. Mahaan Dairies (2004)
11 SCC 798 = 2004 (166) E.L.T. 23 (S.C.)].
18. The Supreme Court in Saraswati Sugar Mills [2011 (270) E.L.T. 465
(S.C.)], has affirmed this principle, assailing in paragraph 7, as follows :
GST LAW TIMES  14th May 2020  108