https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=367251 The appellant, a manufacturer-exporter, filed a refund claim under Notification No.42/12-ST, which was rejected by the adjudicating authority. The appeal was initially rejected due to a perceived delay in filing. The appellant argued that the limitation period should be calculated from the date of the corrigendum, not the original order. The Member (Technical) agreed, citing legal precedents, and set aside the impugned order. The matter was remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a review based on the corrected date of the order, emphasizing the importance of considering corrigendums as part of the original order. en-us Thu, 06 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 18 Sep 2018 08:00:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=367251 The appellant, a manufacturer-exporter, filed a refund claim under Notification No.42/12-ST, which was rejected by the adjudicating authority. The appeal was initially rejected due to a perceived delay in filing. The appellant argued that the limitation period should be calculated from the date of the corrigendum, not the original order. The Member (Technical) agreed, citing legal precedents, and set aside the impugned order. The matter was remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a review based on the corrected date of the order, emphasizing the importance of considering corrigendums as part of the original order. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 06 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=367251