https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171642 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the Respondent, holding that the refund claim was not time-barred under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The amounts paid during the investigation were considered deposits, not duty payments, exempting them from the time limitations. The decision was based on established legal principles distinguishing between deposits and duty payments, following precedents that refunds of deposits are not subject to Section 11B time limits. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal, emphasizing the nature of the payments as deposits and not payments of duty. en-us Fri, 14 Nov 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 28 Jul 2015 10:10:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171642 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the Respondent, holding that the refund claim was not time-barred under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The amounts paid during the investigation were considered deposits, not duty payments, exempting them from the time limitations. The decision was based on established legal principles distinguishing between deposits and duty payments, following precedents that refunds of deposits are not subject to Section 11B time limits. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal, emphasizing the nature of the payments as deposits and not payments of duty. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 14 Nov 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171642