Refund of excise duty paid under protest allowed where Rule 11 and limitation did not defeat restitution in writ jurisdiction.

A refund claim for excise duty paid under protest and under compulsion was not barred by Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, because that provision applied to voluntary payments made under mistake or similar circumstances. The Court also held that, even if limitation principles were considered, Article 226 permitted equitable restitution where the facts did not show laches sufficient to refuse relief. As the payment was not voluntary and the claim was pursued after the legal position became clear, the assessee was entitled to refund.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petitioner's claim for refund of excise duty was barred by Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 or by delay and limitation, and whether refund could nevertheless be granted in writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: The duty was paid under protest and under compulsion of the revenue authorities, not as a voluntary payment arising from inadvertence, error, or misconstruction. On the facts, Rule 11, which governs refund claims in cases of mistake or similar circumstances, was held inapplicable. The Court also held that, even assuming the claim could be tested by limitation principles, the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 permits the Court to exercise equitable discretion and to grant relief where the circumstances do not disclose laches warranting refusal of refund. The payment having been made under protest and the claim being pursued after the legal position became clear, the petitioner was not disentitled to restitution.

Conclusion: Rule 11 did not bar the refund claim, and the petitioner was entitled to refund of the excise duty amount.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded, and the excise duty collected from the petitioner was ordered to be refunded without costs.

Ratio Decidendi: A refund claim for tax or duty paid under protest and under compulsion is not defeated by a limitation-based objection where the writ court finds no laches and, in the exercise of Article 226 discretion, grants restitution notwithstanding the absence of a voluntary payment in mistake.

---