Excise refund limitation barred delayed export refund claim under Rule 57F(3) and Notification No. 85/87-C.E.

Refund claims arising from export consignments under Rule 57F(3) and Notification No. 85/87-C.E. must comply with the statutory limitation period under Section 11B(1). A claim filed more than six months after the date of export was held time-barred, and the Department could not allow the refund merely because the underlying duty or credit position was asserted to be refundable. The notification's quarterly filing restriction reinforced the limitation bar, so the delayed application was not admissible.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim arising from export consignments under Rule 57F(3) read with Notification No. 85/87-C.E. was barred by limitation and therefore not admissible.

Analysis: The refund application was made more than six months after the date of export. The notification in question permitted refund applications not more than once in any quarter of a calendar year, and the claim was not within the limitation period applicable to refund under Section 11B(1). The Court also relied on the settled principle that a time-barred refund claim cannot be granted by the Department.

Conclusion: The refund claim was held to be barred by limitation and not allowable.

Ratio Decidendi: A refund claim under the excise refund scheme must satisfy the statutory limitation period, and a delayed application beyond that period cannot be entertained merely because the underlying credit or duty position is otherwise asserted to be refundable.

---