https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=397195 The court held that the substitution introduced by Notification No.14/2016 was retrospective, replacing the original procedure and making the new provision effective from the inception of the original notification. Relying on precedents, the court concluded that the respondent's rejection of the refund claims as time-barred was correct. The court dismissed the writ petitions, affirming the retrospective application of the substituted provision in Notification No.14/2016. en-us Wed, 05 Aug 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 06 Feb 2021 14:33:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=397195 The court held that the substitution introduced by Notification No.14/2016 was retrospective, replacing the original procedure and making the new provision effective from the inception of the original notification. Relying on precedents, the court concluded that the respondent's rejection of the refund claims as time-barred was correct. The court dismissed the writ petitions, affirming the retrospective application of the substituted provision in Notification No.14/2016. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 05 Aug 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=397195