Strict statutory compliance for refund claims: filing before an unauthorised officer does not satisfy prescribed limitation requirements.

A refund claim under an exemption notification for motor cars used as taxis was held invalid because the supporting certificate and application were not filed with the Assistant Collector within the prescribed time. The notification required satisfaction of the Assistant Collector and filing within three months of clearance, while Section 11B required a refund application to be made before the proper statutory authority within six months. Filing papers before the Superintendent did not cure non-compliance, as the Superintendent was not authorised to receive or decide the claim and there can be no estoppel against a statute. The refund was therefore barred by limitation and failed for want of strict statutory compliance.

---

---

Issues: Whether a refund claim under the exemption notification was valid when the application and supporting certificate were filed before the Superintendent of Central Excise, but not before the Assistant Collector within the prescribed time under Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.

Analysis: The exemption notification for motor cars used as taxis required satisfaction of the Assistant Collector and filing of the supporting certificate within three months of clearance. The procedure letter relied upon by the appellant did not amount to a delegation of power to the Superintendent to receive or decide refund claims. Section 11B expressly required the refund application to be filed before the Assistant Collector within six months, and there can be no estoppel against a statute. Filing the papers before the Superintendent could not substitute for filing before the proper statutory authority, and the claim received by the Assistant Collector beyond time was barred.

Conclusion: The refund claim was time-barred and invalid for want of compliance with the statutory filing requirement.

Final Conclusion: The statutory conditions governing the refund claim were mandatory, and failure to present the claim before the Assistant Collector within the prescribed period defeated the appellant's entitlement to refund.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a refund right is created by statute, the claimant must strictly comply with the prescribed authority and limitation for filing the claim; filing before an not authorised by the statute does not satisfy the statutory requirement.

---