Refund of excise duty collected without authority can survive a limitation objection; refundable amount must still be determined.

Refund of excise duty collected without authority was treated as maintainable despite the refund application being filed beyond the period prescribed by Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules. The Court followed its earlier ruling that the limitation bar did not defeat a claim where the levy itself lacked authority. The refund rejection was quashed, and the matter was remitted to the Assistant Collector to determine the exact refundable amount and issue the refund vouchers.

---

---

Issues: Whether a refund of excise duty could be directed even though the refund application was filed beyond the period prescribed by Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, where the duty was collected without authority; and whether the excise authority should determine the exact refundable amount.

Analysis: The earlier decision of the Court on the same question had held that the bar of limitation under Rule 11 did not defeat a claim for refund when the duty itself had been collected without authority. Following that ruling, the Court held that the petitioner was entitled to refund of the excise duty, while the Assistant Collector was to determine the precise amount refundable and issue the refund vouchers.

Conclusion: The limitation objection was rejected in the facts of the case, and the petitioner was held entitled to refund of the duty collected without authority.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order rejecting the refund claim was quashed and the matter was sent back for determination of the refundable amount and issuance of refund vouchers.

Ratio Decidendi: A refund claim for duty collected without authority is not defeated merely because it was filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules.

---