https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=382203 The court held that the refund claim was governed by Section 11B(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and was filed beyond the prescribed limitation period. The appellant's claim of payment under protest lacked supporting evidence. The court ruled that the Supreme Court's decision in Bhayana Builders (P) Limited did not extend the limitation period for the refund claim. However, the appellant was granted the opportunity to file a fresh refund application based on a new cause of action provided by the Commissioner (Appeals). Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, allowing the appellant to file a new refund application before the original authority. en-us Thu, 20 Jun 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 12 Dec 2019 17:01:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=382203 The court held that the refund claim was governed by Section 11B(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and was filed beyond the prescribed limitation period. The appellant's claim of payment under protest lacked supporting evidence. The court ruled that the Supreme Court's decision in Bhayana Builders (P) Limited did not extend the limitation period for the refund claim. However, the appellant was granted the opportunity to file a fresh refund application based on a new cause of action provided by the Commissioner (Appeals). Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, allowing the appellant to file a new refund application before the original authority. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 20 Jun 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=382203