https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44922 The SC dismissed the special leave petition after recording the respondent's counsel's statement that the department could not press the limitation objection for the first time before the Court. The dismissal was confined to that procedural position and did not decide the refund claim on merits. The Court expressly left the parties free to advance any contentions available in law in appropriate proceedings, including arguments based on the 1991 amendment to the Central Excise Act. Thus, the time-bar plea was not entertained in this proceeding, while the substantive refund controversy remained open. en-us Fri, 01 Sep 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 07 Jul 2010 10:42:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44922 The SC dismissed the special leave petition after recording the respondent's counsel's statement that the department could not press the limitation objection for the first time before the Court. The dismissal was confined to that procedural position and did not decide the refund claim on merits. The Court expressly left the parties free to advance any contentions available in law in appropriate proceedings, including arguments based on the 1991 amendment to the Central Excise Act. Thus, the time-bar plea was not entertained in this proceeding, while the substantive refund controversy remained open. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 01 Sep 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44922