https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48696 A refund claim for duty paid before 6-8-1977 was held to fall under the earlier limitation regime in Rule 11 read with Rule 173-J of the Central Excise Rules, because the right to seek refund had accrued when the duty was paid. The substituted Rule 11, although procedural in form, could not retrospectively curtail an existing vested right of action by imposing a shorter six-month period, especially where the amending notification provided no saving clause or transitional breathing time. The claim was therefore not barred by limitation, the old Rule 11 applied, and the matter was remitted for decision on merits. en-us Thu, 30 Nov 1989 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 06 Nov 2023 15:58:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48696 A refund claim for duty paid before 6-8-1977 was held to fall under the earlier limitation regime in Rule 11 read with Rule 173-J of the Central Excise Rules, because the right to seek refund had accrued when the duty was paid. The substituted Rule 11, although procedural in form, could not retrospectively curtail an existing vested right of action by imposing a shorter six-month period, especially where the amending notification provided no saving clause or transitional breathing time. The claim was therefore not barred by limitation, the old Rule 11 applied, and the matter was remitted for decision on merits. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 30 Nov 1989 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48696