https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379314 The court upheld the decision of the lower authorities, ruling that the appellant's refund claim was time-barred. The appellant's use of CENVAT credit for interest payment in 2003 was deemed erroneous, leading to the rejection of the refund claim filed in 2014. The judge distinguished cited cases and concluded that the refund claim did not fall within the exception. Consequently, the appeal was rejected, affirming the correctness and legality of the lower authorities' decision. en-us Mon, 25 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 01 May 2019 08:09:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379314 The court upheld the decision of the lower authorities, ruling that the appellant's refund claim was time-barred. The appellant's use of CENVAT credit for interest payment in 2003 was deemed erroneous, leading to the rejection of the refund claim filed in 2014. The judge distinguished cited cases and concluded that the refund claim did not fall within the exception. Consequently, the appeal was rejected, affirming the correctness and legality of the lower authorities' decision. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 25 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379314