https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=413284 Refund under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 was examined against the notification condition requiring debit from the CENVAT credit account under Para 2(h) of Notification No. 27/2012-CE (N.T.). The record noted the appellant's claim that the reversal was reflected in subsequent ST-3 returns, but that claim had not been verified by the adjudicating authority. On limitation, the relevant date for the one-year period under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was stated to be the last date of the last month of the quarter, as per the cited High Court ruling. The matter was remanded for verification of the ST-3 returns and reconsideration of the refund claim if compliance was established. en-us Thu, 07 Oct 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 08 Oct 2021 08:20:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=413284 Refund under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 was examined against the notification condition requiring debit from the CENVAT credit account under Para 2(h) of Notification No. 27/2012-CE (N.T.). The record noted the appellant's claim that the reversal was reflected in subsequent ST-3 returns, but that claim had not been verified by the adjudicating authority. On limitation, the relevant date for the one-year period under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was stated to be the last date of the last month of the quarter, as per the cited High Court ruling. The matter was remanded for verification of the ST-3 returns and reconsideration of the refund claim if compliance was established. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 07 Oct 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=413284