https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246274 The Tribunal held that the second payment made by the Appellant should be treated as duty, not a deposit, based on the precedent set in the BDH Industries case. As such, the Refund Claim for the excess duty payment made in error was subject to the one-year limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. The Tribunal dismissed arguments invoking the Limitation Act and the relevance of a Board's Circular and a Supreme Court decision, ultimately rejecting the Appeal for lacking merit. en-us Thu, 13 Oct 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 26 Mar 2014 11:52:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246274 The Tribunal held that the second payment made by the Appellant should be treated as duty, not a deposit, based on the precedent set in the BDH Industries case. As such, the Refund Claim for the excess duty payment made in error was subject to the one-year limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. The Tribunal dismissed arguments invoking the Limitation Act and the relevance of a Board's Circular and a Supreme Court decision, ultimately rejecting the Appeal for lacking merit. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 13 Oct 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246274