Refund claims under excise law remain bound by statutory limitation, and mistake of law cannot override the prescribed time bar.

Refund claims before departmental excise authorities are governed by the express limitation in the excise rules, and a plea of mistake of law does not displace that statutory bar. Rule 11 required refund applications for duty paid through inadvertence, error or misconstruction to be filed within three months, and the longer one-year period under Rule 173J applied only where its conditions were met. Because the refund application was filed beyond the applicable time limit and no entitlement under Rule 173J was shown, the claim was time-barred and not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim for excise duty paid under alleged mistake of law was barred by limitation under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and whether the petitioner could invoke Rule 173J of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 to seek a longer limitation period.

Analysis: Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 required an application for refund of duty paid through inadvertence, error or misconstruction to be lodged within three months of payment. The Court noted that Rule 173J, where applicable, substituted a one-year period, but the claimant still had to satisfy the statutory time limit. Relying on the Supreme Court's exposition that refund claims made before departmental authorities are governed by the limitation contained in the statute and the rules, the Court held that the general law of limitation could not override the express statutory bar. The refund application was filed beyond three months, and the petitioner also failed to establish entitlement within the one-year period under Rule 173J.

Conclusion: The refund claim was time-barred and not maintainable under either Rule 11 or Rule 173J.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed because the petitioner's refund claims could not survive the statutory limitation applicable to departmental refund proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: A refund claim made before departmental excise authorities is governed by the limitation expressly prescribed by the excise statute and rules, and a plea of mistake of law does not displace that statutory bar.

---