https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764369 The court concluded that the Appellant's refund claim was time-barred under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as the claim exceeded the one-year limitation period. The court rejected the argument that the Service Tax payment should be treated as a deposit, finding no legal basis or evidence to support this classification. Additionally, the Appellant's claim for exemption under Notification No. 25/2012-S.T. was denied due to insufficient evidence proving eligibility for the exemption. The court emphasized the necessity of adhering to statutory timelines and the requirement of evidence to support claims. en-us Tue, 07 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 09 Jan 2025 07:46:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764369 The court concluded that the Appellant's refund claim was time-barred under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as the claim exceeded the one-year limitation period. The court rejected the argument that the Service Tax payment should be treated as a deposit, finding no legal basis or evidence to support this classification. Additionally, the Appellant's claim for exemption under Notification No. 25/2012-S.T. was denied due to insufficient evidence proving eligibility for the exemption. The court emphasized the necessity of adhering to statutory timelines and the requirement of evidence to support claims. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 07 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764369