https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50233 A timely refund claim first filed in an unprescribed format was treated as the relevant filing date for limitation because it was later regularised only on directions and was made before finalisation of assessment, so the limitation objection failed. The Revenue's appeal was also found not maintainable because no proper statutory authorisation under Section 35E(2) was produced, creating a jurisdictional defect. The order allowing adjustment of excess cess paid by the assessee was therefore sustained, and the Revenue's challenge failed. en-us Tue, 01 Aug 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 20 Aug 2010 15:17:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50233 A timely refund claim first filed in an unprescribed format was treated as the relevant filing date for limitation because it was later regularised only on directions and was made before finalisation of assessment, so the limitation objection failed. The Revenue's appeal was also found not maintainable because no proper statutory authorisation under Section 35E(2) was produced, creating a jurisdictional defect. The order allowing adjustment of excess cess paid by the assessee was therefore sustained, and the Revenue's challenge failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 01 Aug 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50233