Erroneous refund recovery: limitation runs from refund decision or payment, not from an earlier order for a different period.

Recovery of an erroneous refund was held to be within limitation because the earlier Assistant Collector order concerned an earlier duty period and did not determine the later refund period. For limitation purposes, the relevant event was the sanction and payment of the refund, not the prior order on a different period. As revisionary proceedings were started within one year of the decision and within six months of the erroneous refund payment, the statutory review and recovery action was maintainable and the limitation objection failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Collector's proceedings to recover the refund were barred by limitation.

Analysis: The Tribunal found that the earlier order of the Assistant Collector dealt with duty liability for an earlier period ending 31-3-1978 and did not amount to a finding on duties payable or paid for the later period covered by the refund. The sanction and payment of refund were treated as the relevant decision for limitation purposes. Since the revisionary proceedings were initiated within one year from the decision of the Assistant Collector and within six months from the date of the erroneous refund, the action was held to be within time under the statutory scheme governing review and recovery of erroneous refund.

Conclusion: The limitation objection was rejected and the proceedings for recovery of the refund were held to be maintainable.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the Tribunal upheld the Department's recovery action as time-barred objection notwithstanding, and the refund granted was liable to be recovered under the Act.

Ratio Decidendi: For recovery of an erroneous refund, limitation runs from the date of the refund decision or payment, and a prior order dealing with a different period does not bar statutory review or recovery proceedings.

---