https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=252069 A claim of mistake apparent from the record was rejected because the cited case law had, in substance, been considered, and the order had properly relied on the relevant High Court authorities. The Tribunal held that rebate decisions under Notification No. 11/2005-ST were factually distinct from refund claims under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No. 5/2006-CE(NT), since the refund route attracted the limitation structure under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. It also held that the date of payment of service tax was not the relevant date in such refund matters; the date of invoice applied, and rectification was not maintainable. en-us Fri, 22 Aug 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 18 Jun 2015 15:05:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=252069 A claim of mistake apparent from the record was rejected because the cited case law had, in substance, been considered, and the order had properly relied on the relevant High Court authorities. The Tribunal held that rebate decisions under Notification No. 11/2005-ST were factually distinct from refund claims under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No. 5/2006-CE(NT), since the refund route attracted the limitation structure under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. It also held that the date of payment of service tax was not the relevant date in such refund matters; the date of invoice applied, and rectification was not maintainable. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 22 Aug 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=252069