https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166901 An exemption notification covering clearances made by or on behalf of a manufacturer had to be applied manufacturer-wise, so excess clearances were not to be assessed separately by isolating each factory. On that construction, the departmental approach denying the concession on a factory-by-factory basis was incorrect. For refund limitation under Rule 11, time ran from the payment that actually gave rise to the refund claim, namely the amount repaid under departmental direction, rather than from the earlier duty payment. The refund claims were therefore within time and the manufacturer-wise exemption was admissible. en-us Mon, 27 Feb 1984 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 11 Nov 2014 17:14:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166901 An exemption notification covering clearances made by or on behalf of a manufacturer had to be applied manufacturer-wise, so excess clearances were not to be assessed separately by isolating each factory. On that construction, the departmental approach denying the concession on a factory-by-factory basis was incorrect. For refund limitation under Rule 11, time ran from the payment that actually gave rise to the refund claim, namely the amount repaid under departmental direction, rather than from the earlier duty payment. The refund claims were therefore within time and the manufacturer-wise exemption was admissible. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 27 Feb 1984 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166901