https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328529 SEZ refund claims under Notification No. 9/2009-ST were treated liberally where the scheme was new and procedural uncertainty existed. The Tribunal held that a separate application for extension of time was not required when condonation was sought in the refund application itself, and the delay could be considered on that basis. As the rejection rested solely on limitation, it could not be sustained. The limitation-based rejection was set aside and the matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority to decide the refund claim on merits, with the issue resolved in favour of the assessee. en-us Mon, 09 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 18 Nov 2016 16:40:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328529 SEZ refund claims under Notification No. 9/2009-ST were treated liberally where the scheme was new and procedural uncertainty existed. The Tribunal held that a separate application for extension of time was not required when condonation was sought in the refund application itself, and the delay could be considered on that basis. As the rejection rested solely on limitation, it could not be sustained. The limitation-based rejection was set aside and the matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority to decide the refund claim on merits, with the issue resolved in favour of the assessee. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 09 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328529