Limitation for refund claims runs from actual duty payment, not invoice date, under Notification No. 6/2002 and Rule 8.

Refund claims under Notification No. 6/2002 were to be tested for limitation by reference to the date duty was actually paid, not the date of invoice. For the relevant period, duty on motor vehicles was discharged on the 5th day of the succeeding month under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, so the six-month period ran from that payment date. Because the lower order relied on invoice dates and did not record the actual duty payment date for the disputed claim, the limitation finding was found unsustainable on the existing record and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration of the refund claim.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim under Notification No. 6/2002 was barred by limitation, and whether the relevant date for computing the six-month period was the date of invoice or the date on which duty was actually payable under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.

Analysis: The limitation under the notification had to be counted from the date of payment of duty on the motor vehicles, not from the date of invoice. During the relevant period, duty liability was discharged on the 5th of the succeeding month under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, and the refund application could be filed within six months from that date. The order below proceeded on the basis of invoice dates and did not record findings on the actual date of payment of duty for the disputed claim.

Conclusion: The limitation finding was unsustainable on the existing record, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration of the refund claim of Rs. 4,63,328/- in accordance with Notification No. 6/2002 and the actual date of duty payment.

---