https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463362 CESTAT held that the refund claim filed in May 2000 is time-barred under Section 11B because the controlling appellate decision in favour of the assessee became operative in December 1990 and no stay existed; the six-month limitation therefore commenced from that appellate date. The Tribunal further held that the protest paid under compulsion is vacated by operation of the appellate decision without any separate vacating order by the Competent Authority, and that the Hilton Rubbers line of authority (as treated by the SC) is dispositive, warranting dismissal of the belated claim. en-us Tue, 12 Aug 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 28 Aug 2025 10:55:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463362 CESTAT held that the refund claim filed in May 2000 is time-barred under Section 11B because the controlling appellate decision in favour of the assessee became operative in December 1990 and no stay existed; the six-month limitation therefore commenced from that appellate date. The Tribunal further held that the protest paid under compulsion is vacated by operation of the appellate decision without any separate vacating order by the Competent Authority, and that the Hilton Rubbers line of authority (as treated by the SC) is dispositive, warranting dismissal of the belated claim. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 12 Aug 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463362