https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292461 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the rejection of the refund claim due to a limitation period expiration. The appellant, a consultancy services provider, argued based on Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules and the Span Infotech case, emphasizing the end-of-quarter date for refund claims. The Tribunal upheld the appellant's arguments, noting the limitation period calculation and the one-refund-per-quarter clause. The respondent-department was directed to pay the refund amount with applicable interest within two months of the order communication. en-us Thu, 02 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 25 Dec 2020 09:34:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292461 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the rejection of the refund claim due to a limitation period expiration. The appellant, a consultancy services provider, argued based on Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules and the Span Infotech case, emphasizing the end-of-quarter date for refund claims. The Tribunal upheld the appellant's arguments, noting the limitation period calculation and the one-refund-per-quarter clause. The respondent-department was directed to pay the refund amount with applicable interest within two months of the order communication. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 02 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292461