Excise refund limitation dispute led to full remand for de novo consideration of the entire claim.

Under the excise refund framework, where the appellate authority limited remand only to the portion said to be within limitation, the revision authority held that the limitation issue had not been properly dealt with and that partial remand would improperly restrict reconsideration of the claim. The matter was therefore directed to be remanded in full to the Assistant Collector for de novo consideration, and the appellate restriction confining remand to claims within one year under the refund rules was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the entire refund claim, and not merely the portion said to be within limitation, should be remanded for de novo consideration when the appellate authority had limited the remand to claims within one year under the refund rules.

Analysis: The refund claim arose under the excise refund framework and was considered with reference to the limitation contained in Rule 11 read with Rule 173J of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The lower appellate authority had remanded the matter only for the period not treated as time-barred and upheld rejection of the balance, although the original adjudication had not itself rejected any part of the claim on limitation. The revision authority found that the limitation issue had not been correctly dealt with and that partial remand would wrongly curtail the petitioner's right to have the whole claim examined afresh.

Conclusion: The entire refund claim was directed to be remanded to the Assistant Collector for de novo consideration, and the limitation-based restriction in the appellate order was set aside.

---