Refund limitation for excise deposits under Rule 92B is governed by general limitation, not the Rule 11 six-month period.

Amounts retained as a deposit under Rule 92B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 were held to be distinguishable from duty and charges covered by Rule 11. The special six-month limitation in Rule 11 therefore did not govern refund of the Rule 92B deposit, and the claim could not be rejected as time-barred on that basis. Refund of such a deposit was to be considered under the general law of limitation unless the rule expressly provided otherwise.

---

---

Issues: Whether the six-month time-limit in Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 applied to refund of amounts deposited under Rule 92B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Analysis: Rule 11 governed refund of duty and charges. The amount retained under Rule 92B was a deposit and not duty. Refund of such deposit was therefore not controlled by the special six-month period in Rule 11 and had to be considered under the general law of limitation.

Conclusion: The time-limit in Rule 11 did not apply to refund of the deposit made under Rule 92B, and the refund claim could not be rejected as time-barred on that basis.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory limitation provision governing refund of duty and charges does not apply to refund of a deposit made under a separate compounded levy mechanism unless the rule expressly so provides; such refund is governed by the general law of limitation.

---