https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758677 HC held that refund application filed within limitation period. Following SC precedent in Sunrays Engineers case, court determined limitation period commenced from notification date (18.04.2013) transferring refund authority from DGFT to Deputy Commissioner, not from original duty payment date. Appellant's application dated 03.10.2013 was within one-year limitation period expiring 18.04.2014. CESTAT order rejecting refund on limitation grounds was set aside. Appeal allowed, establishing that limitation runs from when proper authority gains jurisdiction to grant refund, not from underlying transaction date. en-us Fri, 17 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 18 Sep 2024 07:53:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758677 HC held that refund application filed within limitation period. Following SC precedent in Sunrays Engineers case, court determined limitation period commenced from notification date (18.04.2013) transferring refund authority from DGFT to Deputy Commissioner, not from original duty payment date. Appellant's application dated 03.10.2013 was within one-year limitation period expiring 18.04.2014. CESTAT order rejecting refund on limitation grounds was set aside. Appeal allowed, establishing that limitation runs from when proper authority gains jurisdiction to grant refund, not from underlying transaction date. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 17 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758677