https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166663 A timely application for incentive rebate under Notification No. 198/76-C.E. was held sufficient to preserve limitation where the exact refund amount could be quantified only after the Assistant Collector approved the base period and base clearances. The earlier declaration and request for concession were treated as the original claim, and the later refund filing was regarded as a continuation and quantification of that claim. On that basis, the refund was not barred by limitation under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and rejection on limitation grounds was unsustainable. The absence of payment under protest did not defeat the claim. en-us Thu, 04 Aug 1983 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 30 Oct 2014 11:37:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166663 A timely application for incentive rebate under Notification No. 198/76-C.E. was held sufficient to preserve limitation where the exact refund amount could be quantified only after the Assistant Collector approved the base period and base clearances. The earlier declaration and request for concession were treated as the original claim, and the later refund filing was regarded as a continuation and quantification of that claim. On that basis, the refund was not barred by limitation under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and rejection on limitation grounds was unsustainable. The absence of payment under protest did not defeat the claim. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 04 Aug 1983 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166663