TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the refund claim was barred by limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 on the ground that the assessment was not provisional and the duty was not paid under protest.
Analysis: In the absence of an order under Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the assessment could not be treated as provisional. The documents on record also did not show any endorsement that duty had been paid under protest, and the claim to that effect was not substantiated before the Tribunal. On these facts, the statutory bar of limitation applied to the refund claim.
Conclusion: The refund claim was rightly held to be barred by limitation and the rejection of the claim was upheld.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
