https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90135 Duty paid for release of seized goods pending adjudication was not treated as provisional merely because the underlying liability remained to be decided later. Release under Rule 206 did not convert the payment into a provisional assessment, so the refund limitation period ran from the date of payment, not from the subsequent adjudication order. On that basis, the refund claim was time-barred and the argument that limitation should start later was rejected. en-us Tue, 14 Jul 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 03 Oct 2011 17:21:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90135 Duty paid for release of seized goods pending adjudication was not treated as provisional merely because the underlying liability remained to be decided later. Release under Rule 206 did not convert the payment into a provisional assessment, so the refund limitation period ran from the date of payment, not from the subsequent adjudication order. On that basis, the refund claim was time-barred and the argument that limitation should start later was rejected. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 14 Jul 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90135