https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766083 The CESTAT Bangalore allowed the appeal and remanded the matter. The appellant had initially filed a refund claim within the due date, which was partially allowed. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) directed document production and remanded to the Adjudication Authority for verification. The Authority's subsequent rejection of the refund claim as time-barred was held unsustainable, as the appellant had submitted documents as directed during the remand proceedings. The rejection treated it as a fresh application rather than compliance with appellate directions, which was incorrect. The appellant remains eligible for refund of the balance amount upon document production. en-us Tue, 11 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 18 Feb 2025 08:10:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766083 The CESTAT Bangalore allowed the appeal and remanded the matter. The appellant had initially filed a refund claim within the due date, which was partially allowed. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) directed document production and remanded to the Adjudication Authority for verification. The Authority's subsequent rejection of the refund claim as time-barred was held unsustainable, as the appellant had submitted documents as directed during the remand proceedings. The rejection treated it as a fresh application rather than compliance with appellate directions, which was incorrect. The appellant remains eligible for refund of the balance amount upon document production. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 11 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766083