Refund limitation under Central Excise law applies to duty paid without protest, and a later claim cannot bypass the statutory time bar.

Refund of duty paid on molasses was held to be subject to the statutory limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The amount had been paid as duty in 1998-99, while the refund claim was filed only in 2005, and the payment was not made under protest. The article distinguishes cases involving amounts deposited during investigation before liability was fixed, holding those authorities inapplicable here. The operative point is that duty paid cannot be recharacterised as a mere deposit to bypass limitation, and a refund claim must be filed within the prescribed period.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim of duty paid on molasses was barred by limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and whether the payment could be treated as a deposit or payment under protest so as to avoid the limitation.

Analysis: The amount claimed as refund had been paid as duty in 1998-99 on molasses permitted to be retained in the factory under Rule 173H of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. The claim for refund was filed only in 2005. The payment was not made under protest. A refund of duty paid can be granted only if the claim is filed within the time limit prescribed under Section 11B. The decisions relied upon by the appellant were held to be inapplicable because they concerned amounts deposited during investigation before any adjudication had fastened liability, which was not the situation here.

Conclusion: The refund claim was barred by limitation and was rightly rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: A refund of duty paid cannot be allowed unless the claim is filed within the statutory period under Section 11B, and a payment made as duty without protest is not treated as a mere deposit to escape limitation.

---