Refund limitation under Central Excise law cannot override statutory limitation where the rule provides an extendable period.

Section 11B of the Central Excise Act fixes both the refund period and the relevant date for limitation, so a subordinate rule cannot prescribe a different commencement date where the statute has already occupied the field. Rule 173L for refund on returned goods imposes additional conditions and permits the Commissioner to extend the prescribed period. On the stated facts, the refund claim was filed within the extended period and was therefore maintainable; the claim could not be rejected on limitation under Rule 173L.

---

---

Issues: Whether the limitation prescribed in Rule 173L of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 for refund on returned goods could override or conflict with the limitation scheme under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and whether the refund claim was maintainable when the returned goods were reconditioned and resold.

Analysis: Section 11B prescribes both the period for claiming refund and the relevant date from which limitation begins to run. A subordinate rule cannot prescribe a different commencement date where the statute has already occupied that field. Rule 173L contains additional conditions for refund on returned goods and also gives the Commissioner discretion to extend the period contemplated by the rule. On the facts, the claim was made within the extended period contemplated by the rule, and the assessee was entitled to the refund. The other questions were not answered.

Conclusion: The refund claim could not be rejected on the ground of limitation under Rule 173L, and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

---