https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235904 Duty paid during the pendency of a bona fide challenge to the levy was treated as payment under protest, so the refund claim was not hit by the six months' limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Court distinguished the Revenue's reliance on later Supreme Court authority because that case addressed limitation in a different factual setting. On the present facts, the continuing contest to the levy kept the refund claim within time, and the refund was held maintainable. en-us Thu, 27 Jun 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 08 Feb 2014 12:14:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235904 Duty paid during the pendency of a bona fide challenge to the levy was treated as payment under protest, so the refund claim was not hit by the six months' limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Court distinguished the Revenue's reliance on later Supreme Court authority because that case addressed limitation in a different factual setting. On the present facts, the continuing contest to the levy kept the refund claim within time, and the refund was held maintainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 27 Jun 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235904