https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167324 A revised refund claim based on the correct interpretation of Notification No. 146/74-C.E. was stated to be maintainable where the duty had been paid through inadvertence, error or misconstruction and the claim was filed within the then-applicable one-year limitation under Rule 11 read with Rule 173J. Consideration of that revised claim was also said not to amount to a prohibited review, because the earlier Assistant Collector order had not decided the specific interpretative issue later raised. On that basis, the text states that the revised claim could be entertained without the bar of functus officio and that refund relief was warranted after verification of excess payment. en-us Fri, 25 Jan 1985 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 16 Dec 2014 12:12:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167324 A revised refund claim based on the correct interpretation of Notification No. 146/74-C.E. was stated to be maintainable where the duty had been paid through inadvertence, error or misconstruction and the claim was filed within the then-applicable one-year limitation under Rule 11 read with Rule 173J. Consideration of that revised claim was also said not to amount to a prohibited review, because the earlier Assistant Collector order had not decided the specific interpretative issue later raised. On that basis, the text states that the revised claim could be entertained without the bar of functus officio and that refund relief was warranted after verification of excess payment. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 25 Jan 1985 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167324