Refund of excess duty cannot be denied merely for absence of provisional assessment when the claim is within limitation.

Refund of excess duty cannot be refused solely because provisional assessment was not adopted, where the refund claim is filed within the statutory limitation period. The lower appellate authority's view that refund was available only if provisional assessment had been opted for was found unsustainable. As the claim was confined to duty paid in excess of what was due and was not time-barred, the refund remained maintainable. The refund sanctioned by the original authority was restored and the appeal was allowed.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund of excess duty paid could be denied merely because the assessee had not opted for provisional assessment, when the refund claim was filed within the prescribed limitation period.

Analysis: The lower appellate authority rejected the refund on the premise that excess duty could be refunded only where provisional assessment had been opted for. That approach was held to be unsustainable because a refund claim filed within the statutory time limit for duty paid in excess of the amount due cannot be refused on that ground alone. The fact that provisional assessment was not adopted did not defeat a refund claim confined to amounts not time-barred.

Conclusion: The refund claim was maintainable and the rejection was incorrect; the assessee succeeded on the issue.

Final Conclusion: The refund sanctioned by the original authority was restored and the appeal was allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: A refund of excess duty cannot be denied solely for want of provisional assessment where the claim is otherwise filed within the period of limitation prescribed by law.

---