https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=121024 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the rejection of the refund claim by the Assistant Commissioner and Commissioner (Appeals). It held that the refund claim was valid as the deposit made during the investigation, before proceedings commenced, was eligible for refund after proceedings were dropped. Citing precedent, the Tribunal emphasized that such deposits are not subject to the limitation period. The decision was based on the principle established in the case of C.C.E., Chennai-III v. Rane Engine Valves Ltd., concluding that the rejection of the refund claim lacked justification. en-us Mon, 12 Mar 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 26 Jul 2012 11:09:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=121024 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the rejection of the refund claim by the Assistant Commissioner and Commissioner (Appeals). It held that the refund claim was valid as the deposit made during the investigation, before proceedings commenced, was eligible for refund after proceedings were dropped. Citing precedent, the Tribunal emphasized that such deposits are not subject to the limitation period. The decision was based on the principle established in the case of C.C.E., Chennai-III v. Rane Engine Valves Ltd., concluding that the rejection of the refund claim lacked justification. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 12 Mar 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=121024