https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325903 Refund claims under Notification No. 33/99-CE had to be supported by the monthly statement contemplated by clause 2(a), filed within the notification's prescribed monthly timetable and containing an express refund claim. The Tribunal held that the statement could be in the prescribed form or an RT-12 return, but it had to disclose the claim; the returns here did not do so. Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was held inapplicable because the notification itself fixed specific time limits. Claims lodged five to six years later were not made within a reasonable time and were therefore inadmissible. en-us Mon, 29 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 05 Nov 2016 16:19:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325903 Refund claims under Notification No. 33/99-CE had to be supported by the monthly statement contemplated by clause 2(a), filed within the notification's prescribed monthly timetable and containing an express refund claim. The Tribunal held that the statement could be in the prescribed form or an RT-12 return, but it had to disclose the claim; the returns here did not do so. Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was held inapplicable because the notification itself fixed specific time limits. Claims lodged five to six years later were not made within a reasonable time and were therefore inadmissible. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 29 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325903