https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759251 CESTAT NEW DELHI allowed the appeal in a 100% EOU refund case. The appellant's CENVAT credit refund claim was rejected by lower authorities as time-barred under section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, calculating the one-year limitation from the date of input service invoices. CESTAT held that the relevant date for calculating the time limit is the date of receipt of payment for export of services, not the invoice date. Following the larger bench decision in Span Infotech, which established that limitation should be calculated from the last date of the quarter in which FIRCs are received, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order and allowed the appeal. en-us Wed, 25 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 26 Sep 2024 10:17:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759251 CESTAT NEW DELHI allowed the appeal in a 100% EOU refund case. The appellant's CENVAT credit refund claim was rejected by lower authorities as time-barred under section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, calculating the one-year limitation from the date of input service invoices. CESTAT held that the relevant date for calculating the time limit is the date of receipt of payment for export of services, not the invoice date. Following the larger bench decision in Span Infotech, which established that limitation should be calculated from the last date of the quarter in which FIRCs are received, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order and allowed the appeal. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 25 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759251