Refund limitation under Central Excise law must be tested by the rule in force when duty was paid, allowing merits review.

For refund claims under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the applicable limitation period is the one in force on the date the duty was paid, not a later amended period. The claim was rejected only as time-barred on the basis of a six-month limit, but the deciding authority accepted that the earlier rule governed computation of limitation. As the claim was filed within one year of payment, it was not barred by limitation and had to be examined on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim was barred by limitation under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and whether the limitation period to be applied was the rule in force on the date of payment of duty.

Analysis: The refund claim had been rejected solely as time-barred on the footing that the amended limitation period of six months applied. The deciding authority accepted the contention that the material provision for computing limitation was Rule 11 as it stood on the date when the alleged excess duty was paid. On that basis, the claim having been filed within one year of payment, it could not be treated as barred by limitation.

Conclusion: The refund claim was not time-barred and had to be considered on merits.

---