https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80235 A manufacturer who initially opted for Notification No. 138/86 could not later claim retrospective benefit of Notification No. 175/86 from 1-4-86 for the same period. Duty paid in that intervening period was held to be paid under the classification then in force, with no excess or mistaken payment, so it was not refundable under Section 11B. The availability of a more beneficial notification later did not make the earlier payment unlawful, and concurrent benefit of both notifications was barred. The refund claim was rejected. en-us Tue, 01 Aug 1989 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 15 Jun 2011 16:05:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80235 A manufacturer who initially opted for Notification No. 138/86 could not later claim retrospective benefit of Notification No. 175/86 from 1-4-86 for the same period. Duty paid in that intervening period was held to be paid under the classification then in force, with no excess or mistaken payment, so it was not refundable under Section 11B. The availability of a more beneficial notification later did not make the earlier payment unlawful, and concurrent benefit of both notifications was barred. The refund claim was rejected. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 01 Aug 1989 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80235