https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338683 Refund claims under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, read with Notification No. 27/2012-CE, were examined on limitation under Section 11B as applied to service tax. For export of services, the relevant date for the one-year limitation period was treated as the end of the quarter in which export realisation occurred, rather than the date of export invoice or issuance of FIRC. On that basis, the Tribunal found no error in directing re-verification of the refund claims and accepted that the claims were not shown to be time-barred on the Revenue's approach. en-us Mon, 06 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 06 Feb 2017 18:50:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338683 Refund claims under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, read with Notification No. 27/2012-CE, were examined on limitation under Section 11B as applied to service tax. For export of services, the relevant date for the one-year limitation period was treated as the end of the quarter in which export realisation occurred, rather than the date of export invoice or issuance of FIRC. On that basis, the Tribunal found no error in directing re-verification of the refund claims and accepted that the claims were not shown to be time-barred on the Revenue's approach. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 06 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338683