https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=360205 A refund claim under Notification No. 17/09-ST was held time-barred because the notification required filing within one year from export of the goods, and the applications were filed after that period. The argument that limitation should be computed on a quarterly basis was rejected for lack of statutory support in the notification. Authorities cited by the appellant were distinguished because they did not interpret the same limitation condition. The refund rejection was therefore justified, reinforcing that a prescribed refund period under the notification must be strictly complied with. en-us Thu, 12 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 12 May 2018 08:42:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=360205 A refund claim under Notification No. 17/09-ST was held time-barred because the notification required filing within one year from export of the goods, and the applications were filed after that period. The argument that limitation should be computed on a quarterly basis was rejected for lack of statutory support in the notification. Authorities cited by the appellant were distinguished because they did not interpret the same limitation condition. The refund rejection was therefore justified, reinforcing that a prescribed refund period under the notification must be strictly complied with. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 12 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=360205