https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247479 The Tribunal differentiated between refund claims based on the language used in final assessment orders. Refund claims explicitly subject to Section 27 were rejected as time-barred, while those not specifically mentioning it were remanded for reconsideration in line with pre-amendment Section 18 provisions. The case outcome upheld rejection for claims explicitly subject to Section 27, emphasizing the binding nature of final assessment orders, but remanded claims not mentioning Section 27 for further consideration based on High Court decisions regarding pre-amendment entitlement to refunds without filing a claim. en-us Thu, 20 Jun 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 13 May 2014 11:32:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247479 The Tribunal differentiated between refund claims based on the language used in final assessment orders. Refund claims explicitly subject to Section 27 were rejected as time-barred, while those not specifically mentioning it were remanded for reconsideration in line with pre-amendment Section 18 provisions. The case outcome upheld rejection for claims explicitly subject to Section 27, emphasizing the binding nature of final assessment orders, but remanded claims not mentioning Section 27 for further consideration based on High Court decisions regarding pre-amendment entitlement to refunds without filing a claim. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 20 Jun 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247479