Special refund limitation under excise law bars writ refund claims made after the prescribed period.

A refund claim for excise duty collected on flush doors was held barred by the special six-month limitation under section 11-B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The statute was treated as a complete refund code excluding the operation of other laws, including the Contract Act and the Limitation Act, and displacing contrary refund claims. Although Article 226 remains available in principle, writ relief is discretionary and cannot be used to order refund in a manner that defeats the amended statutory scheme. A mandamus directing refund beyond the prescribed period would nullify legislative intent and compel disobedience of the law, so the refund claim was refused.

---

---

Issues: Whether a writ of mandamus could be issued directing refund of excise duty collected on flush doors despite the claim being made beyond the six-month period prescribed under section 11-B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, and whether the High Court could grant refund under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by applying the general three-year limitation principle.

Analysis: The claim arose from collection of excise duty on goods later treated as not falling under the earlier tariff item. The statutory amendment introducing section 11-B created a self-contained refund scheme, prescribed a special limitation of six months, excluded the operation of other laws including the Contract Act and the Limitation Act, and expressly ousted court jurisdiction in refund claims covered by the section. The Court held that while Article 226 remains unimpaired, writ relief is discretionary and must be exercised consistently with the legislative change. The pre-amendment line of cases applying the general law of limitation could not override the amended statutory code, and a mandamus ordering refund beyond the statutory period would defeat the object of section 11-B and amount to compelling disobedience of the law.

Conclusion: The writ claim for refund beyond the six-month period was not maintainable and the relief was refused.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a fiscal statute creates a complete refund code, prescribes a special limitation period, excludes other laws, and bars court jurisdiction, the High Court should not grant refund under Article 226 contrary to that scheme, especially when doing so would nullify the legislative intent.

---