Refund of unlawfully collected excise duty can be sought in writ jurisdiction despite refund limitation rules.

Excess excise duty collected without authority of law was treated as a payment outside the charging provision, so the limitation period in Rule 11 read with Rule 173J for refund of duty paid by inadvertence, error or misconstruction did not govern the claim. Because Article 265 permits levy and collection only by authority of law, the Court held that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 could be invoked to seek return of the unlawfully collected amount despite the departmental objection based on limitation. The impugned orders were quashed and refund of the excess excise duty was directed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim for excess excise duty was barred by limitation under Rule 11 read with Rule 173J of the Central Excise Rules, and whether the Court could grant refund under Article 226 where the amount collected was not legally leviable.

Analysis: Excess excise duty realised beyond what was authorised by law was treated as a collection outside the scope of the charging provision. The limitation in Rule 11, as extended by Rule 173J, was held to govern claims for refund of duty or charges paid by inadvertence, error or misconstruction, but not a claim for return of money collected without legal authority. Since Article 265 permits levy and collection only by authority of law, the Court held that the petitioner could invoke Article 226 to seek refund notwithstanding the departmental refusal based on limitation.

Conclusion: The refund claim was not barred by limitation, the impugned orders were quashed, and the petitioner was entitled to refund of the excess excise duty.

Ratio Decidendi: Limitation provisions governing refund of duty paid by mistake do not apply to sums collected as excise duty without authority of law, and such excess collection can be ordered refunded in writ jurisdiction under Article 226.

---