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 filed beyond the statutory period was barred by limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Analysis: The claim for refund was filed after more than one year from the date of payment. The plea that the amount was merely a deposit made during investigation and therefore outside the limitation period was not accepted. The governing rule applied was that refund claims under the Central Excise law are subject to the limitation prescribed by Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Conclusion: The refund claim was time-barred and was correctly rejected.
Final Conclusion: The appeal failed and the order rejecting refund on the ground of limitation was sustained.
Ratio Decidendi: Refund claims under the Central Excise Act are governed by Section 11B and must be filed within the prescribed limitation period, irrespective of the characterization of the payment as duty or deposit.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
