https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77252 The refund claim under the service tax refund notification was rejected only on limitation, but the amendment substituting "sixty days" with "six months" had to be considered for pending proceedings. Because the lower authorities did not examine the amended notification or the circular, the Tribunal set aside the order and remitted the matter for fresh adjudication. The refund claim was therefore left for de novo determination by the adjudicating authority after hearing the claimant and applying the amended time limit. en-us Wed, 10 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 01 Nov 2010 15:33:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77252 The refund claim under the service tax refund notification was rejected only on limitation, but the amendment substituting "sixty days" with "six months" had to be considered for pending proceedings. Because the lower authorities did not examine the amended notification or the circular, the Tribunal set aside the order and remitted the matter for fresh adjudication. The refund claim was therefore left for de novo determination by the adjudicating authority after hearing the claimant and applying the amended time limit. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 10 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77252