https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265297 Notification No. 35/2000-CE(NT) prescribed a specific six-month limit for recovery of erroneous refund under the special refund scheme, and that special limitation governed the demand. Where the notification itself fixes the recovery period, the general limitation under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 does not override it. The analysis also notes that Section 11A is not an omnibus recovery provision and cannot be invoked to extend time beyond the special scheme's express limit. The erroneous-refund demand was therefore time-barred under the notification-based limitation. en-us Mon, 22 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 09 Oct 2015 10:26:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265297 Notification No. 35/2000-CE(NT) prescribed a specific six-month limit for recovery of erroneous refund under the special refund scheme, and that special limitation governed the demand. Where the notification itself fixes the recovery period, the general limitation under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 does not override it. The analysis also notes that Section 11A is not an omnibus recovery provision and cannot be invoked to extend time beyond the special scheme's express limit. The erroneous-refund demand was therefore time-barred under the notification-based limitation. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 22 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265297