Refund of excess excise duty paid twice was not time-barred where the second deposit was not a mistaken payment under Rule 11.

A refund claim for excess central excise duty paid twice was held not to be barred by limitation under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The second payment was made as a duplicate deposit and not as an accidental or mistaken payment within the rule's scope, so the limitation objection failed. The revision was therefore allowed in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim for excess central excise duty paid twice was barred by limitation under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Analysis: The petitioners paid the duty twice for the same period, once through their agent and once by a duplicate deposit made as a precautionary measure. The claim was rejected as time barred on the premise that it was governed by Rule 11, which applies where payment is made due to inadvertence, error, or misconstruction. On the facts, the second payment was not an accidental or mistaken deposit in the sense contemplated by the rule, and the claim for refund arose from an excess payment already made.

Conclusion: The refund claim was not liable to be rejected as time barred, and the revision was allowed in favour of the assessee.

---