https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72158 A refund order that has been granted but not actually paid can still fall within "erroneously refunded" for limitation purposes under the revisional notice provision, so the show cause notice was treated as within time. The Tribunal also held that a refund claim is governed by the procedural limitation rule in force on the date of the claim, not the rule existing when duty was originally paid. Because the claim was filed after the amended Rule 11 introduced a six-month limit from payment of duty, it was time-barred. The appellate order allowing refund was therefore unsustainable and the original rejection was restored. en-us Thu, 31 Oct 1985 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 12 May 2011 16:58:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72158 A refund order that has been granted but not actually paid can still fall within "erroneously refunded" for limitation purposes under the revisional notice provision, so the show cause notice was treated as within time. The Tribunal also held that a refund claim is governed by the procedural limitation rule in force on the date of the claim, not the rule existing when duty was originally paid. Because the claim was filed after the amended Rule 11 introduced a six-month limit from payment of duty, it was time-barred. The appellate order allowing refund was therefore unsustainable and the original rejection was restored. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 31 Oct 1985 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72158