https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80886 The Tribunal clarified that the relevant date for the six-month period under Section 11-B was not in dispute, and the claim was timely filed. The existence of a practice for refund claim submission by the Superintendent was deemed factual. The claim was considered timely filed before the competent authority based on established practice. The Tribunal found no issue regarding the authority competent to sanction the claim. The Supreme Court's judgment did not impact the Tribunal's earlier orders on filing time limits, leading to the rejection of the Reference Application due to no legal issue arising from the Tribunal's decision. en-us Thu, 26 Jul 1990 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 21 Jun 2011 11:19:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80886 The Tribunal clarified that the relevant date for the six-month period under Section 11-B was not in dispute, and the claim was timely filed. The existence of a practice for refund claim submission by the Superintendent was deemed factual. The claim was considered timely filed before the competent authority based on established practice. The Tribunal found no issue regarding the authority competent to sanction the claim. The Supreme Court's judgment did not impact the Tribunal's earlier orders on filing time limits, leading to the rejection of the Reference Application due to no legal issue arising from the Tribunal's decision. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 26 Jul 1990 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80886