https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165862 Duty paid twice on the same excisable goods was treated as excess payment, so the refund claim was not rejected as a mere time-barred claim under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Because the same engine had suffered double duty and the gate-pass cancellation was intimated within 24 hours, the cancellation notice was regarded as sufficient compliance with Rule 173G. The refund was therefore considered admissible and the limitation objection was not accepted. en-us Sat, 06 Feb 1982 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 13 Aug 2014 18:42:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165862 Duty paid twice on the same excisable goods was treated as excess payment, so the refund claim was not rejected as a mere time-barred claim under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Because the same engine had suffered double duty and the gate-pass cancellation was intimated within 24 hours, the cancellation notice was regarded as sufficient compliance with Rule 173G. The refund was therefore considered admissible and the limitation objection was not accepted. Case-Laws Central Excise Sat, 06 Feb 1982 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165862