Refund limitation under excise law turns on tariff coverage: no Rule 11 bar when goods were outside the tariff.

Duty collected on goods outside the Central Excise Tariff was treated as collected without jurisdiction, so Rule 11 did not govern the refund claim for that period and the ordinary law of limitation applied; the refund was therefore maintainable in favour of the assessee. For the later period, once the goods were classifiable under Tariff Item 68, Rule 11 applied to the refund claim, and the claim filed beyond the prescribed time was barred. The revision succeeded only for the pre-tariff period, with refund to be sanctioned for that amount, while the balance claim failed on limitation.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the refund claim for the period when the speciality oils were outside the Central Excise Tariff was barred by limitation and whether the limitation under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules applied; (ii) Whether the refund claim for the period when the goods were classifiable under Tariff Item 68 was time-barred under Rule 11.

Issue (i): Whether the refund claim for the period when the speciality oils were outside the Central Excise Tariff was barred by limitation and whether the limitation under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules applied.

Analysis: The goods were treated as outside the purview of the Central Excise Tariff for the earlier period, and the duty collected on such goods was treated as having been collected without jurisdiction. In that situation, Rule 11 did not govern the refund claim for the period when the goods were not excisable, and the ordinary law of limitation was held to be relevant.

Conclusion: The claim for the pre-1-3-75 period was not barred under Rule 11 and was held maintainable in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the refund claim for the period when the goods were classifiable under Tariff Item 68 was time-barred under Rule 11.

Analysis: For the later period, the goods were held to fall under Tariff Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff, and duty was payable under that item. Once the goods were within the tariff, the limitation prescribed by Rule 11 became applicable to the refund claim. As the claim was filed beyond the permissible period, the refund for that period could not be granted.

Conclusion: The refund claim for the period 1-3-75 to 3-11-75 was time-barred and stood rejected in favour of the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The revision was allowed only to the extent of refund for the period when the goods were outside the tariff, and the matter was sent back for sanction of that refundable amount. The remaining refund claim failed on limitation.

Ratio Decidendi: Where goods were not within the Central Excise Tariff, duty recovered on them was without jurisdiction and the special refund limitation under Rule 11 did not apply; once the goods became classifiable under the tariff, Rule 11 governed the refund claim.

---