https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330858 The appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals) allowing a partial refund of the amount claimed by the respondent was affirmed. The dispute centered on the time limit for filing the refund claim under notification no. 5/2006-CE (NT) and the interpretation of relevant dates for refund claim eligibility under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The court found that the claims were not time-barred, and the refund eligibility was correctly computed based on the proportion of export turnover to total turnover. en-us Mon, 18 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 25 Feb 2017 10:19:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330858 The appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals) allowing a partial refund of the amount claimed by the respondent was affirmed. The dispute centered on the time limit for filing the refund claim under notification no. 5/2006-CE (NT) and the interpretation of relevant dates for refund claim eligibility under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The court found that the claims were not time-barred, and the refund eligibility was correctly computed based on the proportion of export turnover to total turnover. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 18 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330858