https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123574 Refund claims under Notification No. 6/2002 were to be tested for limitation by reference to the date duty was actually paid, not the date of invoice. For the relevant period, duty on motor vehicles was discharged on the 5th day of the succeeding month under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, so the six-month period ran from that payment date. Because the lower order relied on invoice dates and did not record the actual duty payment date for the disputed claim, the limitation finding was found unsustainable on the existing record and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration of the refund claim. en-us Fri, 16 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 15 Sep 2012 14:49:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123574 Refund claims under Notification No. 6/2002 were to be tested for limitation by reference to the date duty was actually paid, not the date of invoice. For the relevant period, duty on motor vehicles was discharged on the 5th day of the succeeding month under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, so the six-month period ran from that payment date. Because the lower order relied on invoice dates and did not record the actual duty payment date for the disputed claim, the limitation finding was found unsustainable on the existing record and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration of the refund claim. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 16 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123574