https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753586 A fresh refund claim for the same service tax period was barred where an earlier speaking order had already rejected the refund and was not challenged, because the unappealed determination had attained finality. The appellant's reliance on SEZ exemption and the characterisation of the amount as a deposit did not change the position, since the decisive question was whether the prior final order could be reopened through a new application. The CESTAT held that the same claim could not be re-agitated by a subsequent refund request for 01.03.2009 and 02.03.2009, and the rejection of the fresh claims was upheld. en-us Wed, 05 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 06 Jun 2024 08:21:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753586 A fresh refund claim for the same service tax period was barred where an earlier speaking order had already rejected the refund and was not challenged, because the unappealed determination had attained finality. The appellant's reliance on SEZ exemption and the characterisation of the amount as a deposit did not change the position, since the decisive question was whether the prior final order could be reopened through a new application. The CESTAT held that the same claim could not be re-agitated by a subsequent refund request for 01.03.2009 and 02.03.2009, and the rejection of the fresh claims was upheld. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 05 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753586