https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355707 A refund claim under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, read with Notification No. 27/2012-CE(NT), was treated as arising from the statutory export-refund mechanism and not from a refund becoming due only because of a judgment or order. Section 11B of the Central Excise Act applied to the service tax refund by virtue of Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994, but the relevant date had to be assessed in the context of export of services. Because part of the claim had already been accepted within limitation, a later attempt to reject the balance on a different limitation basis ignored the statutory and factual setting and was found without jurisdiction; the refund was to be processed according to law. en-us Thu, 01 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 27 Apr 2018 17:28:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355707 A refund claim under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, read with Notification No. 27/2012-CE(NT), was treated as arising from the statutory export-refund mechanism and not from a refund becoming due only because of a judgment or order. Section 11B of the Central Excise Act applied to the service tax refund by virtue of Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994, but the relevant date had to be assessed in the context of export of services. Because part of the claim had already been accepted within limitation, a later attempt to reject the balance on a different limitation basis ignored the statutory and factual setting and was found without jurisdiction; the refund was to be processed according to law. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 01 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355707