We've upgraded AI Tools on TaxTMI with two powerful modes:
1. Basic • Quick overview summary answering your query with references• Category-wise results to explore all relevant documents on TaxTMI
2. Advanced • Includes everything in Basic • Detailed report covering: - Overview Summary - Governing Provisions [Acts, Notifications, Circulars] - Relevant Case Laws - Tariff / Classification / HSN - Expert views from TaxTMI - Practical Guidance with immediate steps and dispute strategy
• Also highlights how each document is relevant to your query, helping you quickly understand key insights without reading the full text.Help Us Improve - by giving the rating with each AI Result:
Refund claim allowed by Tribunal citing Notification No. 27/12, appellant's claim within time limit The Tribunal held that the refund claim was not time-barred as per Notification No. 27/12 dated 18.06.2012, allowing the appellant's claim of Rs. ...
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
Refund claim allowed by Tribunal citing Notification No. 27/12, appellant's claim within time limit
The Tribunal held that the refund claim was not time-barred as per Notification No. 27/12 dated 18.06.2012, allowing the appellant's claim of Rs. 2,56,262/- filed on 15.12.2017 to be within the prescribed time limit. The rejection of the refund claim was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
Issues involved: Refund claim rejection based on time bar under Notification No. 14/16 dated 01.03.2016.
Summary:
Issue 1: Refund Claim Rejection
The appeal was against the rejection of a refund claim amounting to Rs. 2,56,262/- by the Commissioner Appeal, based on being time-barred under Notification No. 14/16 dated 01.03.2016. The appellant contended that the refund claim was within the time limit, citing precedents and provisions under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Revenue argued that the claim was time-barred as payments for services were received before the invoice dates.
Decision:
Upon considering the submissions and precedents, the Tribunal held that the refund claim was not time-barred. Referring to Notification No. 27/12 dated 18.06.2012, it was noted that a refund claim must be filed for every quarter, with the relevant date considered from the end of the quarter. Citing previous decisions, including M/s Syngenta Services Pvt Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Tax, Pune-II, the Tribunal determined that the refund claim deadline expired at the end of the quarter, even after the amendment via Notification No. 14/16 dated 01.03.2016.
By following the principles laid out in previous cases, the Tribunal calculated the last date to file the refund claim for the invoices issued by the Mohali unit from the last date of the quarter, thereby deeming the appellant's refund application filed on 15.12.2017 to be within the prescribed time limit. Consequently, the impugned order rejecting the refund claim was set aside, and the appeal of the appellant was allowed.
Note: The judgment was pronounced on 31.03.2023 by MR. S. S. GARG, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) at the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT CHANDIGARH.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
• Category-wise results to explore all relevant documents on TaxTMI
Help Us Improve - by giving the rating with each AI Result:
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
