https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116671 Duty paid under protest was held outside the six-month refund bar, as the protest had been communicated to the department and no separate six-month period ran from disposal of the protest. The refund claim filed shortly after the departmental communication was therefore not time-barred. On merits, captive-consumption relief was available for acetic anhydride, and credit under Rule 56A could also be granted even though the claim was made subsequently. The emergence of an intermediate product did not defeat either the exemption or the credit benefit, so the rejection of refund relief could not stand. en-us Mon, 01 Aug 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 14 Jun 2012 16:40:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116671 Duty paid under protest was held outside the six-month refund bar, as the protest had been communicated to the department and no separate six-month period ran from disposal of the protest. The refund claim filed shortly after the departmental communication was therefore not time-barred. On merits, captive-consumption relief was available for acetic anhydride, and credit under Rule 56A could also be granted even though the claim was made subsequently. The emergence of an intermediate product did not defeat either the exemption or the credit benefit, so the rejection of refund relief could not stand. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 01 Aug 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116671