Special limitation for erroneous refund recovery prevails over general excise limitation where the notification fixes the demand period.

Notification No. 35/2000-CE(NT) prescribed a specific six-month limit for recovery of erroneous refund under the special refund scheme, and that special limitation governed the demand. Where the notification itself fixes the recovery period, the general limitation under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 does not override it. The analysis also notes that Section 11A is not an omnibus recovery provision and cannot be invoked to extend time beyond the special scheme's express limit. The erroneous-refund demand was therefore time-barred under the notification-based limitation.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand for recovery of erroneous refund was barred by the limitation prescribed in Notification No. 35/2000-CE(NT), or whether the larger period under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 could be invoked.

Analysis: The refund had been sanctioned under Rule 57AC(7) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002 in terms of Notification No. 35/2000-CE(NT), which expressly required recovery of any erroneous refund on demand made within six months from the date of payment. The Court held that where the notification itself prescribes a specific time limit, the general limitation under Section 11A cannot override it. Reliance was placed on the earlier binding view that Section 11A is not an omnibus limitation provision for every recovery action and does not apply where the special scheme contains its own limitation.

Conclusion: The demand for erroneous refund was time-barred and could not be sustained under Section 11A.

---