https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90332 Rule 173-I was treated as a self-contained mechanism for adjustment of excess excise duty shown in the RT-12 return, so a claim made through that return could not be rejected as time-barred under Section 11B merely because no separate refund application was filed within six months. The specific assessment-and-adjustment procedure prevailed over the general refund limitation, and the provisions were read harmoniously. Relief, however, remained subject to proof that the incidence of duty had not been passed on to another person, so the matter required verification of unjust enrichment before consequential adjustment could be granted. en-us Thu, 14 Dec 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 05 Oct 2011 17:01:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90332 Rule 173-I was treated as a self-contained mechanism for adjustment of excess excise duty shown in the RT-12 return, so a claim made through that return could not be rejected as time-barred under Section 11B merely because no separate refund application was filed within six months. The specific assessment-and-adjustment procedure prevailed over the general refund limitation, and the provisions were read harmoniously. Relief, however, remained subject to proof that the incidence of duty had not been passed on to another person, so the matter required verification of unjust enrichment before consequential adjustment could be granted. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 14 Dec 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90332