https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349684 The court allowed the appeal filed by the Department, setting aside the CESTAT's order that had allowed the respondent's refund claim. The court confirmed the orders of the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise and the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), which had rejected the refund claim on the grounds of being time-barred and not maintainable under the applicable rules. The court reiterated that "the refund claim is not maintainable as time-barred and hit by limitation," and the CESTAT's order was set aside. en-us Tue, 19 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 23 Oct 2017 12:17:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349684 The court allowed the appeal filed by the Department, setting aside the CESTAT's order that had allowed the respondent's refund claim. The court confirmed the orders of the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise and the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), which had rejected the refund claim on the grounds of being time-barred and not maintainable under the applicable rules. The court reiterated that "the refund claim is not maintainable as time-barred and hit by limitation," and the CESTAT's order was set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 19 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349684