https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83490 The appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal as the refund claim was found to be time-barred under Section 11B, filed beyond the prescribed six-month period from the date of duty payment. The appellant's contention regarding abatement from the aggregate value for exemption purposes under Notification 175/86 was rejected, as goods cleared under the AR-4A procedure did not qualify for such abatement. The Tribunal held that the appellant, having exceeded the exemption limit and not being the exporter of the goods, was not entitled to further benefits under the notification. en-us Wed, 09 Mar 1994 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 13 Jul 2011 17:42:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83490 The appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal as the refund claim was found to be time-barred under Section 11B, filed beyond the prescribed six-month period from the date of duty payment. The appellant's contention regarding abatement from the aggregate value for exemption purposes under Notification 175/86 was rejected, as goods cleared under the AR-4A procedure did not qualify for such abatement. The Tribunal held that the appellant, having exceeded the exemption limit and not being the exporter of the goods, was not entitled to further benefits under the notification. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 09 Mar 1994 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83490