Excise refund limitation and writ relief: barred claims may still be repaid where duty was collected under mistake and equity demands it.

Statutory excise refund claims were examined against a six-month limitation period and the equitable reach of writ jurisdiction. The claim for 1981-82 failed because the classification list had been approved, duty had been paid long before the refund request, and the matter had attained finality; the refund was therefore barred. For 1982-83 and 1983-84, the classification lists were still pending and the duty was treated as having been paid under mistake; despite limitation, refund was allowed in writ jurisdiction because retention of the duty was considered harsh and unjust on the facts.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the refund claim for the year 1981-82 was barred by limitation under the excise refund provision. (ii) Whether the refund claims for the years 1982-83 and 1983-84 were wrongfully rejected and could be granted in writ jurisdiction despite the plea of limitation.

Issue (i): Whether the refund claim for the year 1981-82 was barred by limitation under the excise refund provision.

Analysis: The classification list for 1981-82 had already been approved and the duty had been paid long before the refund request was made. The statutory refund period was six months from the relevant date, and on the facts of that year the claim was raised after the matter had attained finality. The delay was unexplained, and no basis existed to reopen the settled position for that year.

Conclusion: The refund claim for 1981-82 was barred and was rightly not granted.

Issue (ii): Whether the refund claims for the years 1982-83 and 1983-84 were wrongfully rejected and could be granted in writ jurisdiction despite the plea of limitation.

Analysis: For 1982-83 and 1983-84 the classification lists were still pending, and the department itself accepted that the goods were properly classifiable under the relevant tariff items and that the exemption for goods made from duty-paid plates and sheets applied. The court treated the case as one where duty had been paid under a mistake and held that, even if limitation under the refund provision was invoked, the refusal to refund would be harsh and unjust. In the exercise of writ jurisdiction, equitable repayment was warranted on the facts.

Conclusion: The refund claims for 1982-83 and 1983-84 were allowed and the duty was directed to be refunded.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded only in part: the refund for 1981-82 remained rejected, while the duty collected for 1982-83 and 1983-84 was ordered to be repaid.

Ratio Decidendi: A refund claim barred under the statutory limitation period may nevertheless be granted in writ jurisdiction where duty was collected under a mistake and the equities of the case make retention of the amount unjust.

---