https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73748 Exemption under Notification No. 95/79-C.E., as amended by Notification No. 58/82-C.E., depended on strict compliance with Rule 56-A procedure and was not retrospective to inputs received before 01.03.1982. Because the prescribed steps, including prior permission, notice, identification and accounting, were not followed, the exemption claim failed. Refund under Section 11-B had to be filed within six months from the date duty was paid on the inputs; the claim was made beyond that period and could not succeed. The document states that non-fulfilment of exemption conditions and expiry of limitation both defeated the refund claim. en-us Mon, 25 Apr 1988 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 03 Jun 2011 13:16:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73748 Exemption under Notification No. 95/79-C.E., as amended by Notification No. 58/82-C.E., depended on strict compliance with Rule 56-A procedure and was not retrospective to inputs received before 01.03.1982. Because the prescribed steps, including prior permission, notice, identification and accounting, were not followed, the exemption claim failed. Refund under Section 11-B had to be filed within six months from the date duty was paid on the inputs; the claim was made beyond that period and could not succeed. The document states that non-fulfilment of exemption conditions and expiry of limitation both defeated the refund claim. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 25 Apr 1988 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73748