Excise duty refund limitation must run under the rules, not from financial year-end or later ceiling verification.

Refund of excise duty had to be filed within the statutory limitation period under Rule 11, read with Rule 173J where applicable, and that period did not run from the end of the financial year. The exemption notification operated only within its monetary ceiling, but it did not defer or extend the limitation for refund claims until the annual limit was finally ascertained. The limitation provision was required to be applied according to its plain terms, and hardship could not override the prescribed time limit. The refund claim was therefore time-barred, and the rejection orders were upheld as valid in law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund application for excise duty was barred by limitation under Rule 11 read with Rule 173J of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, notwithstanding the exemption notification and the contention that the limitation period should run only from the end of the financial year.

Analysis: Rule 11 prescribed refund applications within three months from the date of payment or adjustment, and Rule 173J substituted one year for three months in cases governed by that rule. The exemption notification granted relief only within stated monetary limits, but nothing in the rules made the limitation period depend on the close of the financial year or on the later ascertainment of whether the annual ceiling had been exceeded. The limitation provision had to be given effect according to its plain terms, and hardship could not alter the statutory time limit.

Conclusion: The refund claim was time-barred and the orders rejecting it were in law.

---