https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93674 The judge ruled in favor of the appellants, allowing their appeal against the rejection of a refund claim as time-barred under Section 11B of the Act. The judge emphasized that the pre-deposit made by the appellants before filing the appeal qualified as a protest, meeting the statutory obligation. Citing relevant case laws, the judge set aside the rejection, directing the lower authority to process the refund claim on its merits. The appellants were entitled to the return of the debited amount in their PLA account, highlighting the importance of following legal procedures. en-us Fri, 31 Mar 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 21 Nov 2011 18:59:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93674 The judge ruled in favor of the appellants, allowing their appeal against the rejection of a refund claim as time-barred under Section 11B of the Act. The judge emphasized that the pre-deposit made by the appellants before filing the appeal qualified as a protest, meeting the statutory obligation. Citing relevant case laws, the judge set aside the rejection, directing the lower authority to process the refund claim on its merits. The appellants were entitled to the return of the debited amount in their PLA account, highlighting the importance of following legal procedures. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 31 Mar 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93674