https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362251 Refund claims under Rule 5 were held to be subject to the one-year limitation under Section 11B through the applicable notification, and the earlier contrary authority was distinguished because the relevant enabling paragraph was not then in force. As the refund related to export of services, the FIRCs were received between October and December 2015, making the refund due on 01.01.2016; the claim filed on 08.02.2017 was therefore beyond time. The refund was consequently treated as time-barred and correctly rejected. en-us Mon, 23 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 22 Jun 2018 09:39:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362251 Refund claims under Rule 5 were held to be subject to the one-year limitation under Section 11B through the applicable notification, and the earlier contrary authority was distinguished because the relevant enabling paragraph was not then in force. As the refund related to export of services, the FIRCs were received between October and December 2015, making the refund due on 01.01.2016; the claim filed on 08.02.2017 was therefore beyond time. The refund was consequently treated as time-barred and correctly rejected. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 23 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362251