Strict compliance with exemption-cum-refund notification procedure required; limitation relief does not waive mandatory filing conditions.

Refund under Notification No. 33/99-CE was available only on strict compliance with the notification's prescribed procedure, including timely filing of the monthly statement. The Court held that non-applicability of Section 11B limitation did not excuse breach of mandatory conditions under the exemption-cum-refund scheme. As the claimant failed to establish compliance with Clause 2(a) on the pleadings and findings below, earlier rulings on the same notification did not assist. No substantial question of law arose from the factual findings, and the refund claim was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund under Notification No. 33/99-CE could be denied for non-compliance with the procedure prescribed in the notification and whether the appeal raised any substantial question of law warranting interference.

Analysis: The notification granted exemption and refund subject to the prescribed manner of claiming it, including submission of the monthly statement of duty paid by the 7th of the next month. The Court held that while the bar of limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 would not apply where the conditions of the notification are satisfied, that position does not permit a beneficiary to ignore the notification's procedure. The appellant did not establish, by pleadings or findings below, that the mandatory requirements of Clause 2(a) had been complied with. In the absence of such compliance, the earlier decisions on the same notification did not assist the appellant. No substantial question of law arose from the factual findings recorded by the authorities.

Conclusion: The refund claim could not be sustained, and the appeal failed in favour of the Revenue.

Ratio Decidendi: Benefits under an exemption-cum-refund notification are available only on fulfillment of the notification's prescribed conditions and procedure; mere inapplicability of statutory limitation does not dispense with mandatory compliance.

---