https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=83428 The appellants claimed that the entire amount of service tax paid by them should be considered as a deposit u/s 35FF of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and sought a refund. However, the refund arose only after a de novo order dropped the duty amount of Rs.12,99,411/-. According to Section 11B Clause (ec), the relevant date for filing a refund claim is the date of the judgment, decree, order, or direction of the appellate authority, Appellate Tribunal, or court. The appellant should have filed a refund claim by 20.03.2021, but they filed it u/s 35FF on 07.05.2021, which was received by the Revenue on 15.06.2021. Therefore, the claim is barred by limitation u/s 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Commissioner (Appeals) correctly held that ..... en-us Thu, 28 Nov 2024 07:48:51 +0530 Thu, 28 Nov 2024 07:48:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=83428 The appellants claimed that the entire amount of service tax paid by them should be considered as a deposit u/s 35FF of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and sought a refund. However, the refund arose only after a de novo order dropped the duty amount of Rs.12,99,411/-. According to Section 11B Clause (ec), the relevant date for filing a refund claim is the date of the judgment, decree, order, or direction of the appellate authority, Appellate Tribunal, or court. The appellant should have filed a refund claim by 20.03.2021, but they filed it u/s 35FF on 07.05.2021, which was received by the Revenue on 15.06.2021. Therefore, the claim is barred by limitation u/s 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Commissioner (Appeals) correctly held that ..... Highlights Service Tax Thu, 28 Nov 2024 07:48:51 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=83428