https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789145 Refund claims under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 required fresh examination because the Commissioner (Appeals) had not addressed the appellant's legal objections on limitation, the borrowing of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 into service-tax refund law, and the relevant-date concept. The Tribunal treated these as pure legal issues and noted the need to consider the amended notification, including the later one-year period for service providers and the earlier authority cited by the appellant. The matter was therefore remanded for adjudication of the limitation and notification framework. en-us Wed, 25 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 04 Apr 2026 08:53:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789145 Refund claims under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 required fresh examination because the Commissioner (Appeals) had not addressed the appellant's legal objections on limitation, the borrowing of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 into service-tax refund law, and the relevant-date concept. The Tribunal treated these as pure legal issues and noted the need to consider the amended notification, including the later one-year period for service providers and the earlier authority cited by the appellant. The matter was therefore remanded for adjudication of the limitation and notification framework. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 25 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789145