Refund limitation under Central Excise law turns on formal provisional assessment and the correct Section 11B relevant date.

Refund claims under the Central Excise Act were tested against Section 11B limitation and unjust enrichment. For the first claim, the Tribunal held that self-assessment did not amount to provisional assessment in the absence of a formal Rule 9B order, so Section 11B applied; the claim was time-barred, although the record did not support the Revenue's unjust enrichment objection. For the second claim, the relevant date was the actual date of duty payment, not clearance, and the application was filed within one year of those payments, so the claim was within limitation. The result was a mixed outcome, with only the later refund surviving.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the refund claim of Rs. 12,67,122 was barred by limitation and whether the bar of unjust enrichment applied; (ii) Whether the refund claim of Rs. 3,93,783 was filed within limitation under the relevant date for refund.

Issue (i): Whether the refund claim of Rs. 12,67,122 was barred by limitation and whether the bar of unjust enrichment applied.

Analysis: The clearance period in question was under self-assessment and there was no subsisting order of provisional assessment under Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 for the disputed clearances. A provisional character cannot be assumed merely because the price was finalized later. In such circumstances, the limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 applies. On unjust enrichment, the record showed that the excess duty had not been passed on in the manner alleged by Revenue, and the situation was covered by the principle applied in cases where subsequent price adjustment does not create unjust enrichment.

Conclusion: The refund claim of Rs. 12,67,122 was time-barred, and the Revenue succeeded on this issue.

Issue (ii): Whether the refund claim of Rs. 3,93,783 was filed within limitation under the relevant date for refund.

Analysis: For this claim, the excess duty had been paid on specific dates within the refund period, and the relevant date for Section 11B was the date of payment of duty, not the date of clearance. Since the refund application was filed within one year from those payment dates, the claim was within limitation. The objection based on limitation therefore failed.

Conclusion: The refund claim of Rs. 3,93,783 was within limitation, and the Revenue failed on this issue.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the refund in respect of the later claim and restored the rejection of the earlier claim, resulting in a mixed outcome with only partial success for Revenue.

Ratio Decidendi: Provisional assessment cannot be inferred without a formal order under Rule 9B, and for refund under Section 11B the relevant date must be determined in accordance with the actual statutory trigger, including the date of payment where applicable.

---