https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75075 HC held the sums deposited were deposits and not duty, so Section 11-B did not govern refund. The Asst. Commissioner erred by treating Section 11-B as applicable and denying the petitioner's refund claim as time-barred. The impugned order refusing the refund was quashed and the writ petition allowed to the extent of directing refund of the amounts in deposit. en-us Tue, 11 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 12 Nov 2025 12:26:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75075 HC held the sums deposited were deposits and not duty, so Section 11-B did not govern refund. The Asst. Commissioner erred by treating Section 11-B as applicable and denying the petitioner's refund claim as time-barred. The impugned order refusing the refund was quashed and the writ petition allowed to the extent of directing refund of the amounts in deposit. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 11 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75075