Central excise refund limitation runs from payment date, and misconstruction of law does not avoid the statutory time-bar.

Refund of excess central excise duty paid on a declared price list remained subject to the statutory limitation under Rule 11 read with Rule 173J, even where the overpayment arose from misconstruction of law following the Voltas valuation clarification. For limitation, the material date was the date of payment of duty, not the date of RT-12 assessment. The argument based on the Contract Act was rejected as inapplicable to a refund claim for central excise duty. The appellate refund order was therefore modified, and admissibility depended on compliance with the prescribed time-bar.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim for excess excise duty paid on the basis of the declared price list was barred by limitation under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Rule 173J of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and whether the relevant date for limitation was the date of assessment or the date of payment.

Analysis: The claim arose after the legal position on valuation was clarified in the Voltas judgment, and the overpayment was treated as resulting from misconstruction of law rather than any unintentional error in the declaration itself. Refunds based on such misconstruction were held to remain subject to the statutory time-limit. For limitation purposes, the material date was the date of payment of duty and not the date of RT-12 assessment. The contention founded on the Contract Act was rejected as having no application to a claim for refund of central excise duty.

Conclusion: The refund claim was not automatically outside the statutory scheme, but its admissibility depended on compliance with the limitation under Rule 11 read with Rule 173J, with the date of payment being decisive.

Final Conclusion: The appellate order granting refund was modified, and the refund was held to be governed by the statutory time-limit applicable to claims for excess duty paid under misconstruction of law.

Ratio Decidendi: In a claim for refund of central excise duty, the limitation under the relevant rules runs from the date of payment of duty, and a refund founded on misconstruction of law remains subject to that statutory time-bar.

---