https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=414118 The appellant's refund claim under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 was contested due to the limitation of one year as per Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant's claim for October-December 2016 was deemed time-barred and rejected, while the claim for January-March 2017 was within the time limit and allowed. The decision was based on the calculation of the one-year period from the end of the quarter for which the refund is sought. Precedents such as CCE VS. M/s. Etisalat Software Solution Pvt Ltd. and CCE Vs. Prodair Air Products India Pvt Ltd. supported the outcome. en-us Wed, 22 Sep 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 29 Oct 2021 04:48:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=414118 The appellant's refund claim under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 was contested due to the limitation of one year as per Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant's claim for October-December 2016 was deemed time-barred and rejected, while the claim for January-March 2017 was within the time limit and allowed. The decision was based on the calculation of the one-year period from the end of the quarter for which the refund is sought. Precedents such as CCE VS. M/s. Etisalat Software Solution Pvt Ltd. and CCE Vs. Prodair Air Products India Pvt Ltd. supported the outcome. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 22 Sep 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=414118