Writ refund relief for excise duty collected without authority of law, with Rule 11 limitation held inapplicable.

A writ petition under Article 226 was held maintainable for refund of excess excise duty collected without authority of law, because the dispute did not require trial of disputed facts and the Revenue could not retain illegal exactions merely by pointing to an ordinary statutory remedy. Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules was held inapplicable on the facts, as the claim was not treated as one arising from inadvertence, error, or misconstruction; the limitation attached to that rule, including Rule 173-J, therefore did not bar refund. The revisional and restrictive appellate orders were quashed and refund was directed after verification of accounts.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was maintainable for refund of excess excise duty alleged to have been collected without authority of law. (ii) Whether the refund claims were governed by Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules and therefore barred beyond the prescribed period.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was maintainable for refund of excess excise duty alleged to have been collected without authority of law.

Analysis: The amounts in dispute were accepted to have been paid in excess after the legal position was clarified by the Supreme Court. The Court held that the matter did not turn on disputed questions of fact requiring a civil suit, and that the existence of an ordinary statutory remedy did not bar constitutional relief where the State retained money without authority of law. Reliance was placed on the constitutional principle that tax or duty collected without legal sanction cannot be retained by the Revenue.

Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable and relief under Article 226 was available to the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the refund claims were governed by Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules and therefore barred beyond the prescribed period.

Analysis: The Court held that the payments were not mere cases of inadvertence, error, or misconstruction within the meaning of Rule 11 on the facts found. The claim was treated as one for return of money collected without authority of law, and therefore Rule 11 and the limitation linked with it, including Rule 173-J, were held inapplicable. The restrictive approach of the revisional authority was rejected.

Conclusion: Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules did not bar the refund claims, and the limitation applied by the Revenue was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The impugned revisional order and the restrictive portion of the appellate order were quashed, and the respondents were directed to refund the excess duty claimed, after verification of the accounts.

Ratio Decidendi: Money collected and retained as duty without authority of law can be ordered to be refunded in writ jurisdiction, and a limitation provision meant for claims arising from inadvertence, error, or misconstruction does not apply to such an illegal exaction.

---