https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330905 Refund limitation could not be invoked where the governing refund provision did not prescribe a relevant date for computation, so a limitation-based rejection lacked legal support. Refund also could not be denied merely for absence of shipping bills once export proof had been accepted and the bond released, because shipping bills were treated as evidence of export rather than a standalone substantive condition. Filing more than one refund claim in the same quarter was treated as a procedural matter and not a bar to entitlement. The matter was therefore remitted for fresh quantification of refundable credit and interest. en-us Thu, 30 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 18 Aug 2017 13:06:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330905 Refund limitation could not be invoked where the governing refund provision did not prescribe a relevant date for computation, so a limitation-based rejection lacked legal support. Refund also could not be denied merely for absence of shipping bills once export proof had been accepted and the bond released, because shipping bills were treated as evidence of export rather than a standalone substantive condition. Filing more than one refund claim in the same quarter was treated as a procedural matter and not a bar to entitlement. The matter was therefore remitted for fresh quantification of refundable credit and interest. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 30 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330905