Limitation and Section 11D recovery issue: Tribunal found the demand prima facie time-barred and granted unconditional stay.

The Tribunal held prima facie that a demand raised several years after credit was taken pursuant to departmental direction was vulnerable to limitation, because the matter appeared to concern recovery of an erroneously granted refund. It also found prima facie that Section 11D was not the proper provision for recovering the disputed amount, as the appellants' limitation objection had substance on the face of the record. On that basis, the stay petition was allowed unconditionally.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand was prima facie barred by limitation and whether recovery of the disputed amount could be pursued under Section 11D instead of Section 11A.

Analysis: The appellants had taken credit pursuant to departmental direction, and the subsequent notice was issued several years later in relation to the amount credited in 1993. On a prima facie view, the matter was one of recovery of an erroneously granted refund, attracting the limitation objection raised by the appellants. The Tribunal also found, at least prima facie, that Section 11D was not the appropriate provision for such recovery.

Outcome: The stay petition was allowed unconditionally.

---