https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118634 Refund of duty paid by a 100% export oriented undertaking was held maintainable where the Department's duty demand was raised beyond the prescribed limitation and without a notice under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act. The clearances to a domestic tariff area unit under an advance release order were treated by the Department as attracting duty equivalent to the countervailing duty element, but the liability was determined more than two years after clearance and through a procedurally defective demand. Because the refund application was filed within six months of payment, the claim could not be denied, and protest was immaterial. The refund was correctly allowed. en-us Mon, 04 Sep 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 04 Jul 2012 16:48:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118634 Refund of duty paid by a 100% export oriented undertaking was held maintainable where the Department's duty demand was raised beyond the prescribed limitation and without a notice under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act. The clearances to a domestic tariff area unit under an advance release order were treated by the Department as attracting duty equivalent to the countervailing duty element, but the liability was determined more than two years after clearance and through a procedurally defective demand. Because the refund application was filed within six months of payment, the claim could not be denied, and protest was immaterial. The refund was correctly allowed. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 04 Sep 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118634