Limitation for recovery of erroneous excise refund: demand beyond the prescribed period was held time-barred.

Recovery of an erroneous central excise refund had to be pursued under the limitation provision applicable to recovery from the claimant, not under the inapplicable refund provisions. Rule 10-A was held inapplicable because the refund had been granted by error, bringing the matter within Rule 10, which prescribed a one-year period. Rule 11 was also inapplicable as it governed refunds to a claimant rather than recovery from a claimant. As the show-cause notice was issued beyond the permissible period, the demand for excess refund recovery was time-barred and the order of the Assistant Collector was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether recovery of excess duty refund was barred by limitation and whether the notice could be sustained under Rule 10-A, Rule 10, Rule 11 and Rule 173-J of the Central Excise Rules.

Analysis: The refund cheque had been issued more than one year before the show-cause notice. Rule 10-A was held inapplicable because the refund had been granted through error and such a case fell within Rule 10, which prescribed a one-year period. Rule 11 was found inapplicable because it governs refund to a claimant and not recovery from the claimant. On the admitted dates, the demand was raised beyond the permissible period.

Conclusion: The recovery of duty was time-barred and the order of the Assistant Collector was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the assessee obtained relief against the demand for recovery of excess refund.

Ratio Decidendi: Recovery of an erroneous excise refund must be initiated under the appropriate limitation provision, and a demand issued beyond the prescribed period is barred.

---