https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335518 The appellant challenged the rejection of a refund amount of 81,368, citing issues related to time limitations and invoice discrepancies. The CESTAT clarified that a refund can be filed once for any quarter in a calendar year and emphasized the permissibility of annual refund filings to avoid multiplicity. The CESTAT also highlighted the determination of the one-year period for refund claims under the Central Excise Act. The rejection of a refund claim of 1,15,088 due to invoice name discrepancies was deemed unjustified, and the matter was remanded for proper verification and refund approval. Both appeals were remanded for reevaluation within four months. en-us Fri, 14 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 03 Dec 2016 08:22:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335518 The appellant challenged the rejection of a refund amount of 81,368, citing issues related to time limitations and invoice discrepancies. The CESTAT clarified that a refund can be filed once for any quarter in a calendar year and emphasized the permissibility of annual refund filings to avoid multiplicity. The CESTAT also highlighted the determination of the one-year period for refund claims under the Central Excise Act. The rejection of a refund claim of 1,15,088 due to invoice name discrepancies was deemed unjustified, and the matter was remanded for proper verification and refund approval. Both appeals were remanded for reevaluation within four months. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 14 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335518