https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48360 HC allowed the appeal, set aside impugned orders and held the refund application dated 27-7-99 to be within time. The court ruled that rejecting the refund solely because it was filed 27 days late from the strict six-month window under Clause 6 of the Appendix read with Section 11B was not justified; the claim fell within the scope of Clause 6 of the Appendix to the Notification under Rule 57F rather than strictly within Section 11B, so limitation alone could not bar the refund. en-us Fri, 17 Oct 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 10 Nov 2025 14:57:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48360 HC allowed the appeal, set aside impugned orders and held the refund application dated 27-7-99 to be within time. The court ruled that rejecting the refund solely because it was filed 27 days late from the strict six-month window under Clause 6 of the Appendix read with Section 11B was not justified; the claim fell within the scope of Clause 6 of the Appendix to the Notification under Rule 57F rather than strictly within Section 11B, so limitation alone could not bar the refund. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 17 Oct 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48360