https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=240492 In the absence of an express bar in the refund notification, accumulated Cenvat credit taken in an earlier period cannot be denied merely because the refund is claimed in a later quarter; quarterly refund claims remain permissible, and the prior timing of invoices or payments does not by itself defeat the claim. Refund may, however, be refused where the supporting invoices are not issued in the claimant's name, because that defect goes to the eligibility of the claimed credit. The refund rejection was therefore set aside only for the earlier-period credit, while the denial relating to invoices in another concern's name was sustained. en-us Wed, 25 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 05 Dec 2013 08:00:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=240492 In the absence of an express bar in the refund notification, accumulated Cenvat credit taken in an earlier period cannot be denied merely because the refund is claimed in a later quarter; quarterly refund claims remain permissible, and the prior timing of invoices or payments does not by itself defeat the claim. Refund may, however, be refused where the supporting invoices are not issued in the claimant's name, because that defect goes to the eligibility of the claimed credit. The refund rejection was therefore set aside only for the earlier-period credit, while the denial relating to invoices in another concern's name was sustained. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 25 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=240492