Archana Wadhwa, J. - (1.)ALL the three appeals are being disposed of by a common order as the issue involved is identical. For better appreciation of facts reference is being made to Appeal No. 1270/2011 -SM. After hearing both the sides, I find that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of bicycle parts which they were clearing for the domestic markets as also were being exported. As per the service tax provisions, the appellant was required to pay service tax in respect of GTA services received by them and the export commission services on reverse charge basis. The appellant did not deposit the said service tax on the belief that where the services stands utilised for export, no deposits were required to be made. However, subsequently the Revenue made out a demand against them and accordingly appellant deposited the service tax in respect of export commission and GTA services. In as much as the said services were used by them for export of their final product, they were entitled to refund of the same under Notification No. , dtd. 06.10.07. The refund claim filed by the appellant stands rejected by the authorities below on the ground that the same stands filed after a period of expiry of 60 days from the end of the relevant quarter and as such the conditions of Notification No. , dtd. 06.10.07 do not stands satisfied by them. Accordingly, the refund claims were rejected as barred by limitation.
(2.)LD . advocate appearing for the applicants does not dispute that in terms of said Notification, the refund claims are required to be filed on quarterly basis within 60 days from the end of the relevant quarter during which the said goods have been exported. Admittedly, the goods were exported prior to the deposit of the service tax and as such the appellant was unable to claim refund of the same. He fairly agrees that the refund claims stands filed after a period of 60 days from the end of the relevant quarter during which the goods were exported. However, he submits that the refunds are within a period of limitation as provided under section 11B from the date of deposits of the duties. Arguing further, he submits that as the service tax was not deposited by the appellant, the question of claiming the refund of the same within a period of limitation provided under Notification No. does not arise. Accordingly, he prays for adopting the limitation as provided under section 11B in as much as the said section stands made applicable to the service tax matters in view of the section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994.
Ld. DR appearing for the Revenue prays for rejection of the appeals on the ground that when the Notification in question lays down the limitation period, the refund application should have been filed within the period and such period cannot be further extended.

(3.)AFTER considering the submissions made by both the sides, I find that in terms of Notification No. , the refund of service tax used in export of the final product is required to be made by an assessee on quarterly basis within 60 days from the end of the relevant quarter during which the said goods have been exported. The goods in appeal No. E/1271/2011 -SM stands exported during the period 18.04.06 to 31.03.09. However, as the appellant had not paid the service tax in respect of GTA services and overseas commission service received by them, the question of refund claim within a period of 60 days from the export period, does not arise. The said deposits were made by the appellant subsequently on 01.12.09 and the refund applications were filed on 11.03.10.
Same is the situation in other two appeals in as much as the refund stands filed after the expiry of limitation period provided in terms of Notification but within a period of one year from the date deposits of tax.