https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347932 The case involved a refund claim rejection due to being time-barred. The appellant made payments exceeding confirmed duties after a reduction in demand. The claim was rejected based on a one-year filing requirement from the date of the Commissioner (Appeals) order. The tribunal ruled that the period for filing should start from the date of payment, not the order-in-appeal, emphasizing the need for proper verification of facts. The tribunal set aside the rejection and remanded the matter for a fresh decision, instructing authorities to consider the correct filing period. The appeal was allowed for reassessment. en-us Fri, 28 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 14 Sep 2017 07:44:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347932 The case involved a refund claim rejection due to being time-barred. The appellant made payments exceeding confirmed duties after a reduction in demand. The claim was rejected based on a one-year filing requirement from the date of the Commissioner (Appeals) order. The tribunal ruled that the period for filing should start from the date of payment, not the order-in-appeal, emphasizing the need for proper verification of facts. The tribunal set aside the rejection and remanded the matter for a fresh decision, instructing authorities to consider the correct filing period. The appeal was allowed for reassessment. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 28 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347932