https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754890 CESTAT Chennai held that refund claims under N/N. 4/2004-ST are governed by statutory time limits under section 11B of Finance Act 1994, not shorter notification-prescribed periods. Following SC precedent in Sony India case, notification-mandated limitation periods cannot override statutory periods. However, for claims under N/N. 9/2009-ST requiring approval committee's service list, non-compliance with mandatory conditions affects exemption validity. Matter remanded to original authority for fresh adjudication regarding compliance with notification requirements while upholding statutory time limit applicability. en-us Tue, 02 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 02 Jul 2024 20:45:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754890 CESTAT Chennai held that refund claims under N/N. 4/2004-ST are governed by statutory time limits under section 11B of Finance Act 1994, not shorter notification-prescribed periods. Following SC precedent in Sony India case, notification-mandated limitation periods cannot override statutory periods. However, for claims under N/N. 9/2009-ST requiring approval committee's service list, non-compliance with mandatory conditions affects exemption validity. Matter remanded to original authority for fresh adjudication regarding compliance with notification requirements while upholding statutory time limit applicability. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 02 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754890