https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96442 Refund claims under excise law were held to be barred when filed beyond the prescribed limitation period, especially where the duty incidence had already been passed on; the record also supported collusion and unjust enrichment, so recovery of the wrongly refunded amount was sustained. By contrast, a short-levy demand based on alleged ineligibility for a small scale industry exemption was rejected where the governing notification, as applied to the facts and precedent, did not support the allegation of suppression or fraudulent availment. The material thus distinguishes time-barred, duty-passed refund claims from exemption disputes that depend on the correct scope of the notification. en-us Thu, 12 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 21 Dec 2011 16:58:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96442 Refund claims under excise law were held to be barred when filed beyond the prescribed limitation period, especially where the duty incidence had already been passed on; the record also supported collusion and unjust enrichment, so recovery of the wrongly refunded amount was sustained. By contrast, a short-levy demand based on alleged ineligibility for a small scale industry exemption was rejected where the governing notification, as applied to the facts and precedent, did not support the allegation of suppression or fraudulent availment. The material thus distinguishes time-barred, duty-passed refund claims from exemption disputes that depend on the correct scope of the notification. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 12 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96442