https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355109 The appellate tribunal set aside the order-in-appeal by the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals) in the case involving M/s Poona Brush Co. The tribunal found that the lower authorities erred in determining the "relevant date" for the claim for refund under rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The tribunal clarified that the relevant date should be the last date of the quarter in which the exports occurred. As a result, the refund application was deemed to have been filed within the limitation period, and the case was remanded for reassessment. en-us Fri, 15 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 01 Mar 2019 16:44:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355109 The appellate tribunal set aside the order-in-appeal by the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals) in the case involving M/s Poona Brush Co. The tribunal found that the lower authorities erred in determining the "relevant date" for the claim for refund under rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The tribunal clarified that the relevant date should be the last date of the quarter in which the exports occurred. As a result, the refund application was deemed to have been filed within the limitation period, and the case was remanded for reassessment. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 15 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355109