Retrospective excise refund rules require statutory exceptions to be satisfied before mandamus can compel immediate refund.

Section 11B of the Central Excise and Salt Act was treated as operating retrospectively, so refund claims were held to be governed by the statutory scheme even where earlier orders existed. A writ of mandamus for immediate refund was not available unless the claimant first brought the case within the exceptions to the proviso in Section 11B(2). The existence of an alternative remedy before the authority, together with pending appellate proceedings, supported refusal of direct writ relief until the statutory requirements were satisfied.

---

---

Issues: Whether a writ of mandamus could be issued for refund of excise duty without the assessee first establishing that the claim fell within the exceptions under Section 11B(2) of the Central Excise and Salt Act.

Analysis: Section 11B, as amended, was treated as having retrospective operation, and refund was held to be governed by the statutory scheme notwithstanding earlier orders. The Court noted that refund could be granted only if the claimant brought the case within the statutory exceptions to the proviso to sub-section (2). The existence of the assessee's remedy before the authority and the pending appellate proceedings were also taken into account.

Conclusion: No writ of mandamus for immediate refund was granted, as the petitioner had first to satisfy the statutory requirements under Section 11B(2).

---