https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789537 Disputed excise duty appropriated by the Department while recovery was stayed in appeal was treated as payment under protest, so the ordinary one-year limitation under Section 11B did not apply. The refund claim was therefore not time-barred, because the appropriation occurred during subsistence of the stay and the proviso to Section 11B excluded limitation. Explanation (ec) to Section 11B was held inapplicable on these facts, as the claim did not arise merely from an appellate order granting refund. Earlier closure of writ petitions challenging the appropriation order did not prevent consideration of the refund issue in the appeal, and refund was held payable. en-us Wed, 08 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 09 Apr 2026 14:57:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789537 Disputed excise duty appropriated by the Department while recovery was stayed in appeal was treated as payment under protest, so the ordinary one-year limitation under Section 11B did not apply. The refund claim was therefore not time-barred, because the appropriation occurred during subsistence of the stay and the proviso to Section 11B excluded limitation. Explanation (ec) to Section 11B was held inapplicable on these facts, as the claim did not arise merely from an appellate order granting refund. Earlier closure of writ petitions challenging the appropriation order did not prevent consideration of the refund issue in the appeal, and refund was held payable. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 08 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789537