Excise refund limitation follows the law in force when the claim is filed; Section 11B governs post-commencement claims.

Limitation for excise refund claims is procedural and applies as on the date the refund is sought, so claims filed after commencement of Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 are governed by that provision rather than the earlier unrestricted regime under Rule 11. The Tribunal also held that Section 11B(3) and Rule 11(3) do not confer an automatic right to refund without filing a proper claim, as the relied-upon earlier order was confined to its own facts and jurisdictional setting. It further found no breach of natural justice in partial rejection of a refund claim without prior notice, because Section 11B does not require a pre-decisional show-cause notice.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the limitation law governing refund claims was the law in force on the date of the claim, and whether Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 applied to the claims in question; (ii) Whether sub-section (3) of Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 or Rule 11(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 entitled the assessee to refund without a fresh application; (iii) Whether rejection of the refund claim in part without issuing a prior notice violated natural justice.

Issue (i): Whether the limitation law governing refund claims was the law in force on the date of the claim, and whether Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 applied to the claims in question.

Analysis: The Tribunal applied the principle that limitation is procedural and operates retrospectively. On that basis, the relevant law for refund claims is the law prevailing when the refund is claimed, not the law in force when the duty was paid. The Tribunal followed the larger Bench view and held that Section 11B governed the claims filed after its commencement.

Conclusion: The refund claims were governed by Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, and not by the earlier unrestricted position under Rule 11.

Issue (ii): Whether sub-section (3) of Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 or Rule 11(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 entitled the assessee to refund without a fresh application.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that the Board's earlier order related to specific proceedings concerning the Calcutta factory and could not be treated as universally applicable to all similar goods manufactured elsewhere. The statutory phrase relied upon did not confer an automatic refund right in every case without an application. The order was confined to its own facts and jurisdictional setting.

Conclusion: The assessee was not entitled to refund without filing a refund claim on the strength of Section 11B(3) or Rule 11(3).

Issue (iii): Whether rejection of the refund claim in part without issuing a prior notice violated natural justice.

Analysis: The Tribunal distinguished the refund process from duty recovery proceedings under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. It held that Section 11B contains no express requirement of a prior show-cause notice before rejection of a refund claim, and that the assessee had adequate opportunity to present its case through the refund application and statutory appeals. The Tribunal therefore found no denial of natural justice.

Conclusion: No breach of natural justice was made out.

Final Conclusion: The refund claim was rightly subjected to Section 11B, no automatic refund arose under the prior order or the statutory provisions invoked, and the challenge based on absence of prior notice failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Limitation provisions governing refund claims are procedural and apply as on the date the refund is claimed, while Section 11B does not create an automatic refund entitlement or require a prior notice before rejection of a refund application.

---