https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217978 Refund of accumulated CENVAT credit attributable to exports under Rule 5 was treated as distinct from refund of duty paid in cash, so Section 11B limitation was held inapplicable. The quarterly filing requirement in Notification No. 5/2006 was regarded as an administrative stipulation and not a time bar. Because the lower authorities rejected the claim only on limitation without examining whether the amount represented export-related accumulated credit, the rejection was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration on merits. en-us Fri, 11 May 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 21 Jan 2013 12:52:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217978 Refund of accumulated CENVAT credit attributable to exports under Rule 5 was treated as distinct from refund of duty paid in cash, so Section 11B limitation was held inapplicable. The quarterly filing requirement in Notification No. 5/2006 was regarded as an administrative stipulation and not a time bar. Because the lower authorities rejected the claim only on limitation without examining whether the amount represented export-related accumulated credit, the rejection was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration on merits. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 11 May 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217978