Specific excise refund limitation prevails over general limitation, and belated back-period claims were rejected.

Refund claims for the earlier period were not maintainable where the record did not show any refund application filed within the time prescribed by Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 or compliance with the prescribed procedure. An earlier order recognising eligibility for proforma credit did not amount to sanction of refund for the back period. The General Limitation Act was treated as inapplicable because the claim was governed by the specific limitation under the Central Excise Rules. Belated refund was also considered improper where the duty burden had likely been passed on. The time-barred refund claims were therefore rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim for the back period was maintainable despite the earlier order accepting that the goods were eligible for proforma credit, and whether the time limit under the General Limitation Act could override the limitation under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Analysis: The earlier order only accepted that the goods were eligible for the benefit of the notification and did not amount to sanction of refund for the back period. The record showed that the claim for proforma credit was made only from 28 July 1967, and there was nothing to show that any refund claim for the earlier period had been filed within the period prescribed by Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 or that the prescribed procedure had been followed. The General Limitation Act was held inapplicable where the claim was governed by the specific limitation under the Central Excise Rules. The authorities also noted that belated refund would lead to undue enrichment because the duty burden would have been passed on.

Conclusion: The refund claims not filed within the time limit under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 were rightly rejected, and the revision application failed.

---