High Court directs refund of central excise duty, rejecting limitation argument. Section 11 B(5) not applicable.

The High Court allowed the petitioner's appeal, directing the refund of the pre-deposited central excise duty amount. The rejection of the refund claim based on limitation was found unsustainable as the pre-deposited sum was pending appeal and not a payment. The court held that Section 11 B(5) did not apply, and the refund claim was within the permissible time frame. The impugned order was quashed, and the refund with statutory interest was directed to be made within 12 weeks.

---

---

Issues:
- Challenge to order for central excise duty demand
- Refund claim rejection based on limitation

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, an Executive Engineer, challenged an order demanding central excise duty. The petitioner pre-deposited a sum as a condition for filing an appeal. The appeal was dismissed due to a delay in deposit. However, the High Court granted liberty to approach the tribunal for restoration. The appeals were allowed, directing the refund of the pre-deposited amount. The revenue did not appeal, making the order final. The petitioner requested the refund, but it was rejected citing limitation under Section 11 B(5) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

2. The High Court found the rejection unsustainable for multiple reasons. Firstly, the pre-deposited amount was not a payment but a deposit pending appeal. It could not be appropriated until the appeal outcome. Therefore, Section 11 B(5) did not apply. Secondly, even if treated as paid, the limitation for a refund claim would start after the tribunal's order. The petitioner's application was within the time frame, making the rejection invalid. As a result, the High Court quashed the impugned order and directed the refund of the amount with statutory interest within 12 weeks. No costs were awarded, and the petition was closed.

---