Refund claims must be expressly pleaded; retrospective excess refund could not be adjusted against a later claim.

A refund claim must be assessed on the terms actually made, and an excess refund arising from a retrospective amendment cannot be treated as adjusted against a later claim unless that adjustment is expressly sought in the refund application. Earlier letters from the assessee did not amend the filed refund claim, and the sanctioning authority could not be presumed to have granted relief beyond the amount claimed. The attempted recasting of a concluded refund claim was impermissible, so recovery of the excess refund was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant could adjust the excess refund allegedly paid during earlier months against a later refund claim, and whether the demand for repayment of the excess amount was sustainable.

Analysis: The exemption notification originally permitted refund of duty paid in cash through PLA, but a later amendment imposed a restriction and was given retrospective effect. The admitted excess payment arose because of that retrospective change. However, the later refund claim filed for January 2003 sought only a specific refund amount and did not contain any request to adjust the earlier excess payments. The sanctioning authority could not be presumed to have granted or adjusted an amount beyond what was actually claimed. Letters written earlier by the assessee did not alter the contents of the refund claim as filed and sanctioned. The attempted adjustment would amount to recasting a concluded refund claim, which was not permissible.

Conclusion: The adjustment was impermissible and the demand for recovery of the excess refund was upheld against the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: A refund claim must stand on its own terms, and excess duty refund arising from a retrospective amendment cannot be treated as adjusted unless such adjustment is expressly claimed in the refund application itself.

---