Consequential excise refund from appellate relief is not barred by Section 11B limitation or protest requirements.

A refund arising as a consequential benefit of appellate relief was treated as distinct from an independent refund claim and, on that approach, was not governed by Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The earlier refund adjustments were viewed as a closed transaction with no bearing on the later entitlement that arose only after the appellate order. Once the appellate relief created the refund entitlement, the authorities were required to grant it on their own motion. The claim could not be rejected as time-barred, and the absence of protest or compliance with Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 did not defeat the refund.

---

---

Issues: Whether a refund arising as a consequential benefit from an appellate order is governed by Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and whether the claim could be rejected as time-barred for want of protest or compliance with Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Analysis: The refund claim was treated as arising directly from the appellate relief and not as a separate or independent refund linked to the earlier adjusted amounts. The prior refunds and their adjustment against the demand were treated as a closed transaction, having no bearing on the later claim that arose only after the appellate order. Since the entitlement to refund emerged from the appellate relief itself, the authorities were required to grant it on their own motion. In that situation, the bar of limitation under Section 11B did not apply, and the absence of protest or compliance with Rule 233B did not defeat the claim.

Conclusion: The refund was held to be a consequential refund not governed by Section 11B, and the rejection on limitation and protest grounds was not sustainable.

---