https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73756 The refund claim was treated as received on 6-6-1978 because the alleged earlier filing date was not raised before the authorities and was not accepted. Since the authorities had examined only Rule 11 and had not considered Rule 173J, the limitation issue under the Central Excise Rules, 1944 required fresh examination for a manufacturer under the Self Removal Procedure. The appellate forum therefore set aside the order to the necessary extent and remitted the refund matter for reconsideration on limitation, without expressing any view on the merits of the refund claim. en-us Mon, 16 May 1988 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 03 Jun 2011 13:35:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73756 The refund claim was treated as received on 6-6-1978 because the alleged earlier filing date was not raised before the authorities and was not accepted. Since the authorities had examined only Rule 11 and had not considered Rule 173J, the limitation issue under the Central Excise Rules, 1944 required fresh examination for a manufacturer under the Self Removal Procedure. The appellate forum therefore set aside the order to the necessary extent and remitted the refund matter for reconsideration on limitation, without expressing any view on the merits of the refund claim. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 16 May 1988 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73756