https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=430322 Refund claims under Notification No. 12/2013 were not finally rejected on limitation because the authorities had not examined whether payment of premium could constitute the relevant date for computing the one-year period. As the working sheet suggested the claims may have been filed within time, the limitation question required verification at the original stage. The connected refund issues also needed fresh examination. The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded to the original authority for fresh adjudication, with a personal hearing to be granted. en-us Wed, 26 Oct 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 17 Nov 2022 09:11:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=430322 Refund claims under Notification No. 12/2013 were not finally rejected on limitation because the authorities had not examined whether payment of premium could constitute the relevant date for computing the one-year period. As the working sheet suggested the claims may have been filed within time, the limitation question required verification at the original stage. The connected refund issues also needed fresh examination. The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded to the original authority for fresh adjudication, with a personal hearing to be granted. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 26 Oct 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=430322