https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54560 An excess debit in the PLA/CENVAT account made by clerical or arithmetical mistake was treated as an excess deposit, not as duty, because it was not reflected as duty in the invoices and was promptly intimated to the department for rectification. On that basis, the earlier intimation was treated as the refund claim, the limitation under Section 11B was held inapplicable in the same manner, and the time-bar objection failed. Refund of the amount paid by mistake was therefore maintainable and allowable to the assessee. en-us Thu, 01 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 25 Sep 2015 11:38:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54560 An excess debit in the PLA/CENVAT account made by clerical or arithmetical mistake was treated as an excess deposit, not as duty, because it was not reflected as duty in the invoices and was promptly intimated to the department for rectification. On that basis, the earlier intimation was treated as the refund claim, the limitation under Section 11B was held inapplicable in the same manner, and the time-bar objection failed. Refund of the amount paid by mistake was therefore maintainable and allowable to the assessee. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 01 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54560