Refund limitation runs from the appellate order creating entitlement, not from prior price finalisation, under excise refund rules.

For a refund claim arising from an appellate order under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the relevant date for limitation is the date of the judgment, decree, order or direction that first makes duty refundable. The Karnataka HC held that the refund entitlement arose only when the appellate authority set aside the rejection and allowed the claim, so the limitation period ran from that appellate order. Because the refund application was filed within one year of that order, it was within time, and the Tribunal's contrary view based on the earlier price-finalisation date was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether, for a refund claim arising from an appellate order, the relevant date for limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was the date of finalisation of prices between the assessee and its customers or the date of the appellate order granting refund.

Analysis: The refund became payable only after the appellate authority set aside the rejection order and allowed the assessee's claim. Section 11B treats the date of the judgment, decree, order or direction that makes duty refundable as the relevant date. The subsequent refund application was filed within one year from the appellate order. The Tribunal, instead, proceeded on the footing of the earlier price-fixation process and did not consider the effect of the appellate order that had created the entitlement to refund.

Conclusion: The relevant date was the date of the appellate order granting refund, not the date of finalisation of prices. The refund application was within limitation and the finding of the Tribunal to the contrary was set aside in favour of the assessee.

---