https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446187 CESTAT NEW DELHI allowed the appeal, setting aside the refund claim rejection. The lower authority had rejected the claim citing one-year time limitation under section 11B(1) of Central Excise Act. CESTAT held that Section 142(5) of CGST Act, 2017 exempts such refund claims from the one-year limitation, applying only sub-section (2) provisions. Since the service contract was cancelled before service provision and no unjust enrichment occurred, the appellant remained entitled to refund. The authority lacked constitutional power under Article 265 to retain amounts without corresponding tax liability. en-us Tue, 31 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 28 Nov 2023 07:41:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446187 CESTAT NEW DELHI allowed the appeal, setting aside the refund claim rejection. The lower authority had rejected the claim citing one-year time limitation under section 11B(1) of Central Excise Act. CESTAT held that Section 142(5) of CGST Act, 2017 exempts such refund claims from the one-year limitation, applying only sub-section (2) provisions. Since the service contract was cancelled before service provision and no unjust enrichment occurred, the appellant remained entitled to refund. The authority lacked constitutional power under Article 265 to retain amounts without corresponding tax liability. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 31 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446187