https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84360 The text examines the construction of the proviso to Section 11B(1) on refund limitation, specifically whether the six-month bar is excluded where duty was paid under protest when the refund claimant is someone other than the manufacturer. It also addresses the related question of the relevant date for limitation, namely whether it should be the date of purchase or the date of payment/clearance. The Tribunal noted the absence of authoritative precedent on these issues and treated them as questions requiring High Court determination. It further recorded that the reference statement and framed questions required no addition or amendment, as both parties agreed they were correctly framed. en-us Fri, 19 Aug 1994 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 21 Jul 2011 15:13:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84360 The text examines the construction of the proviso to Section 11B(1) on refund limitation, specifically whether the six-month bar is excluded where duty was paid under protest when the refund claimant is someone other than the manufacturer. It also addresses the related question of the relevant date for limitation, namely whether it should be the date of purchase or the date of payment/clearance. The Tribunal noted the absence of authoritative precedent on these issues and treated them as questions requiring High Court determination. It further recorded that the reference statement and framed questions required no addition or amendment, as both parties agreed they were correctly framed. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 19 Aug 1994 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84360