https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42739 An exporter's choice between export under rebate and export under bond does not, by itself, create invidious discrimination where both statutory routes are available and the exporter voluntarily elects one; the discrimination challenge was rejected. Recovery of an allegedly erroneous refund was governed by the limitation period in force when the show-cause notice was issued, so the proceeding could continue only within the then-applicable three-month period. The recovery demand was therefore confined to refunds made within three months before the notice date. en-us Thu, 09 Jan 1986 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 14 Jun 2010 10:14:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42739 An exporter's choice between export under rebate and export under bond does not, by itself, create invidious discrimination where both statutory routes are available and the exporter voluntarily elects one; the discrimination challenge was rejected. Recovery of an allegedly erroneous refund was governed by the limitation period in force when the show-cause notice was issued, so the proceeding could continue only within the then-applicable three-month period. The recovery demand was therefore confined to refunds made within three months before the notice date. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 09 Jan 1986 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42739