Section 11B limitation does not bar refund where excess duty is creditable in PLA after provisional assessment.

Refund claims arising from excess central excise duty were treated as outside the limitation bar in Section 11B where provisional assessment was involved and the assessee was entitled to credit the excess duty in the PLA on assessment of the RT-12 returns. The appellate finding on provisional assessment was not effectively disproved, and the view that a separate refund claim was unnecessary in those facts was also upheld. Rule 173-I was not shown to be subject to Section 11B limitation on the facts considered, and the reasoning was supported by the Supreme Court decision in Mafatlal Industries. The refund claims were therefore not hit by Section 11B limitation.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claims were barred by limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and whether Rule 173-I of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 rendered the claims outside the scope of the time-limit because the excess duty was creditable in the assessee's PLA on assessment of the RT-12 returns.

Analysis: The appellate authority's finding that provisional assessment was involved was not effectively disproved. The finding that no separate refund claim under Section 11B was necessary when the assessee was entitled to take credit of excess duty in the PLA on assessment of the RT-12 return was also not successfully assailed. The applicability of Rule 173-I was not shown to be subject to the limitation under Section 11B in the facts of the case, and reliance on the Supreme Court's decision in Mafatlal Industries was accepted.

Conclusion: The refund claims were not hit by the limitation under Section 11B, and the dismissal of the Revenue's challenge to the refund relief was upheld.

---