https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347584 An exemption notification prescribing a monthly procedure for refund claims required the manufacturer to file the duty-paid statement by the 7th of the next month, and that condition could not be ignored. The Tribunal held that the statement, whether filed under the notification or through RT-12 returns, had to contain a refund claim, and distinguished cases where the notification benefit had been specifically claimed in the returns. It further held that Section 11B of the Central Excise Act did not override the notification's own refund mechanism and time limit. Refund claims filed after 5 to 6 years were therefore time-barred and inadmissible. en-us Thu, 24 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 07 Sep 2017 11:20:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347584 An exemption notification prescribing a monthly procedure for refund claims required the manufacturer to file the duty-paid statement by the 7th of the next month, and that condition could not be ignored. The Tribunal held that the statement, whether filed under the notification or through RT-12 returns, had to contain a refund claim, and distinguished cases where the notification benefit had been specifically claimed in the returns. It further held that Section 11B of the Central Excise Act did not override the notification's own refund mechanism and time limit. Refund claims filed after 5 to 6 years were therefore time-barred and inadmissible. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 24 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347584