Beneficial Board circulars bind Revenue, but statutory limitation still governs refund claims under customs and excise law.

A beneficial Board circular was treated as binding on the Revenue and was applied to prevent double cess on the same export product under two cess enactments, supporting refund of cess paid under one enactment. At the same time, refund claims had to comply with the statutory limitation under the customs and excise scheme; general limitation principles could not extend the filing period, even where payment was said to have been made under mistake of law. On that basis, the refund was admissible on merits, but the part relating to shipping bills filed before the protest letter was time-barred.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether cess could be levied twice on the same export product under the two cess enactments and whether the Board's circular binding on the Revenue supported refund of the cess paid under one enactment; (ii) Whether the refund claim was barred by time in respect of the shipping bills filed before the protest letter.

Issue (i): Whether cess could be levied twice on the same export product under the two cess enactments and whether the Board's circular binding on the Revenue supported refund of the cess paid under one enactment.

Analysis: The Board's circular was treated as binding on the Revenue where it was beneficial to the assessee. The existence of two enactments did not justify double collection on the same product once the circular clarified that cess could not be charged twice by treating the same item as both primary and processed product.

Conclusion: The refund was held admissible on merits and the Revenue's challenge failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the refund claim was barred by time in respect of the shipping bills filed before the protest letter.

Analysis: Refund claims under the customs and excise framework were required to be filed within the statutory scheme, and general law of limitation could not be invoked to enlarge the period. A payment said to be made under mistake of law did not displace the statutory limitation applicable to refund claims.

Conclusion: The refund claim relating to the shipping bills filed before the protest letter was held time-barred.

Final Conclusion: The order granting refund on the merits but denying part of the claim as time-bar was sustained, and both appeals were dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Board circulars beneficial to the assessee are binding on the Revenue, but refund claims under the taxing statute remain confined to the statutory limitation and cannot be enlarged by general law of limitation even where payment is said to have been made under mistake of law.

---