https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116386 The appeal was dismissed as the Tribunal upheld the rejection of the refund claim, stating that the relevant time for filing the claim was the date of duty payment, not the date of price revision by the buyer. The appellants' failure to claim provisional assessment at the time of supply, coupled with paying duty without protest, did not entitle them to claim back the duty based on a subsequent price reduction by the buyer. The decision underscores the importance of adhering to the statutory limitation period for refund claims under Section 11B of the Act to avoid rejection on grounds of being time-barred. en-us Mon, 04 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 12 Jun 2012 10:06:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116386 The appeal was dismissed as the Tribunal upheld the rejection of the refund claim, stating that the relevant time for filing the claim was the date of duty payment, not the date of price revision by the buyer. The appellants' failure to claim provisional assessment at the time of supply, coupled with paying duty without protest, did not entitle them to claim back the duty based on a subsequent price reduction by the buyer. The decision underscores the importance of adhering to the statutory limitation period for refund claims under Section 11B of the Act to avoid rejection on grounds of being time-barred. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 04 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116386