https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42182 The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, emphasizing the importance of the second respondent's role in determining base period and clearances for claiming exemption benefits under Notification No. 198/76. The court found the second respondent's limitation argument flawed and remitted the matter for the necessary determinations, allowing for quantification of benefits and subsequent refund claims. The court clarified that the limitation for refund claims would run from the date of such determination, ultimately granting the writ petitions without awarding costs. en-us Tue, 18 Aug 1987 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 09 Jun 2010 16:42:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42182 The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, emphasizing the importance of the second respondent's role in determining base period and clearances for claiming exemption benefits under Notification No. 198/76. The court found the second respondent's limitation argument flawed and remitted the matter for the necessary determinations, allowing for quantification of benefits and subsequent refund claims. The court clarified that the limitation for refund claims would run from the date of such determination, ultimately granting the writ petitions without awarding costs. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 18 Aug 1987 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42182