Statutory limitation bars time-barred excise refund claims, while constitutional challenges to levy must be taken to the proper forum.

Authorities acting under a taxing statute are bound by the statutory period of limitation, so a refund claim filed beyond six months could not be entertained and was rightly rejected as time-barred. The Tribunal also lacked competence to examine a challenge to the constitutional validity of the trade notice or levy in proceedings governed by the statute; such relief lay before the civil court or by writ jurisdiction. The rejection of the refund was therefore sustained, and the assessee was left to pursue any available constitutional or civil remedy.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the refund claim was barred by limitation under the Central excise law. (ii) Whether the Tribunal could entertain the challenge to the constitutional validity of the trade notice and the levy.

Issue (i): Whether the refund claim was barred by limitation under the Central excise law.

Analysis: The refund was claimed long after payment of duty, beyond the statutory period of six months. The authorities under the statute are bound by the limitation prescribed by the enactment, and a claim filed after the prescribed period cannot be granted by invoking general principles of limitation. The distinction between remission of duty and refund of duty was also noted, and the earlier authorities rejecting the claim as time-barred were affirmed.

Conclusion: The refund claim was time-barred and was rightly rejected; the finding is against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the Tribunal could entertain the challenge to the constitutional validity of the trade notice and the levy.

Analysis: A challenge to the vires of the levy or to constitutional validity does not fall within the Tribunal's competence when the claim itself is governed by statutory limitation. Such relief lies before the civil court or by writ petition under the Constitution, not in proceedings before the Tribunal acting under the statute.

Conclusion: The Tribunal could not examine the constitutional challenge; the finding is against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on limitation and the impugned order rejecting the refund was sustained, leaving the assessee to pursue any constitutional or civil remedy, if otherwise available.

Ratio Decidendi: Authorities functioning under a taxing statute are bound by the statutory period of limitation, and a refund claim filed beyond that period cannot be entertained by the Tribunal, while any challenge to the vires of the levy must be pursued before the competent constitutional or civil forum.

---