https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464542 CESTAT held the refund claim filed on 26.10.2017 is time-barred under s.104(3) Finance Act, 1994 (six-month limitation) and rejected reliance on the one-year period under s.11B CEA, 1944. The Bench followed higher-court authority upholding the shorter limitation and ruled that a High Court order issued under Article 226 does not bind the Tribunal in statutory appeal proceedings. The Third Member concurred, the impugned order sustaining rejection of the refund was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed. en-us Thu, 20 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 03 Nov 2025 18:01:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464542 CESTAT held the refund claim filed on 26.10.2017 is time-barred under s.104(3) Finance Act, 1994 (six-month limitation) and rejected reliance on the one-year period under s.11B CEA, 1944. The Bench followed higher-court authority upholding the shorter limitation and ruled that a High Court order issued under Article 226 does not bind the Tribunal in statutory appeal proceedings. The Third Member concurred, the impugned order sustaining rejection of the refund was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 20 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464542