Separate limitation for each illegal excise payment and tufted carpets excluded from woollen fabrics under the tariff entry.

Limitation for refund of illegal excise collections ran separately from the date of each payment, because the cause of action arose when each payment was made and not from the later departmental or revisional determination; payments outside the limitation period, after adding the Section 80 CPC notice period, were time-barred, while later payments remained recoverable. On classification, tufted carpets were not treated as woven fabric and did not fall within Item 21 as "woollen fabrics"; the levy was therefore unsustainable on merits. The refund decree was confined to the sums within limitation, and the remainder of the claim failed as barred by time.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether each illegal excise payment gave rise to a separate cause of action for the purpose of limitation under Article 113 of the Limitation Act; (ii) Whether tufted carpets were covered by Item 21 of the Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act as "woollen fabrics".

Issue (i): Whether each illegal excise payment gave rise to a separate cause of action for the purpose of limitation under Article 113 of the Limitation Act.

Analysis: The right to sue accrued when each individual payment was made, because the suit was founded on the alleged illegality of each payment and not on the later departmental or revisional determination. Each payment therefore constituted a distinct cause of action, though the claims could be joined in one suit. The suit was consequently within limitation only in respect of payments made within the limitation period, after adding the notice period under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Conclusion: The limitation plea succeeded in part, and refund was barred for the payments made up to serial numbers 1 to 56.

Issue (ii): Whether tufted carpets were covered by Item 21 of the Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act as "woollen fabrics".

Analysis: In light of the revisional order and the Supreme Court decision relied upon, tufted carpets were not treated as woven fabric and therefore did not fall within the expression "woollen fabrics" in Item 21.

Conclusion: The levy was held to be unsustainable on merits and the assessee succeeded on the classification issue.

Final Conclusion: The decree was confined to the amount within limitation, while the remaining claim for refund was rejected as time-barred; the assessee succeeded on merits but only partially obtained refund relief.

Ratio Decidendi: For refund suits based on illegal excise collections, limitation runs separately from the date of each payment, and carpets not being woven fabric do not fall within a tariff entry for woollen fabrics.

---