https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167635 Refund of excess central excise duty paid on a declared price list remained subject to the statutory limitation under Rule 11 read with Rule 173J, even where the overpayment arose from misconstruction of law following the Voltas valuation clarification. For limitation, the material date was the date of payment of duty, not the date of RT-12 assessment. The argument based on the Contract Act was rejected as inapplicable to a refund claim for central excise duty. The appellate refund order was therefore modified, and admissibility depended on compliance with the prescribed time-bar. en-us Sat, 05 Jul 1975 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 27 Dec 2014 11:42:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167635 Refund of excess central excise duty paid on a declared price list remained subject to the statutory limitation under Rule 11 read with Rule 173J, even where the overpayment arose from misconstruction of law following the Voltas valuation clarification. For limitation, the material date was the date of payment of duty, not the date of RT-12 assessment. The argument based on the Contract Act was rejected as inapplicable to a refund claim for central excise duty. The appellate refund order was therefore modified, and admissibility depended on compliance with the prescribed time-bar. Case-Laws Central Excise Sat, 05 Jul 1975 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167635