https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=430376 The Tribunal upheld the rejection of refund claims as time-barred and inadmissible CENVAT availed by the appellants. The Tribunal found that the claims exceeded the one-year period specified under the Central Excise Act, 1944, and Notification No. 27/2012. The argument for clubbing refund claims to avoid time-bar issues was rejected as the appellant had filed separate claims for each quarter. The Tribunal clarified that relief for recredit and refund should be sought separately under the relevant Notification. Ultimately, the appeals were dismissed, emphasizing adherence to the specific adjudication scope. en-us Wed, 16 Nov 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 17 Nov 2022 12:03:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=430376 The Tribunal upheld the rejection of refund claims as time-barred and inadmissible CENVAT availed by the appellants. The Tribunal found that the claims exceeded the one-year period specified under the Central Excise Act, 1944, and Notification No. 27/2012. The argument for clubbing refund claims to avoid time-bar issues was rejected as the appellant had filed separate claims for each quarter. The Tribunal clarified that relief for recredit and refund should be sought separately under the relevant Notification. Ultimately, the appeals were dismissed, emphasizing adherence to the specific adjudication scope. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 16 Nov 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=430376