Excise duty refund in writ jurisdiction upheld despite section 11B limitation and passing-on objection.

A refund claim for excise duty, though rejected by the department as time-barred under section 11B, was considered maintainable in writ jurisdiction under Article 226. The Court followed the applicable precedent and rejected the contention that relief must fail merely because the duty burden had been passed on to customers. On the facts as decided, the statutory limitation bar did not prevent the Court from directing repayment, and the refund claim was allowed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a refund claim, though rejected as time-barred under section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, could nevertheless be granted in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 when the duty had been passed on to customers.

Analysis: The claim for refund related to excise duty paid on deductions subsequently found to be permissible, but the refund was refused by the department on limitation grounds under section 11B. The Court noted the earlier majority view in the connected line of authority and held itself bound by that view. It also followed the approach that had treated the refund controversy as governed by the principles applied in the cited Supreme Court decision, rather than by the contrary contention that the writ court should refuse relief solely because the duty burden had been passed on. The bar of limitation under section 11B did not prevent the Court from granting relief in the writ petition on the facts as decided.

Conclusion: The refund claim was held maintainable and the appeal was allowed in favour of the appellants.

Ratio Decidendi: A refund of excise duty can be granted in writ jurisdiction notwithstanding rejection under the statutory limitation provision, where the governing precedent supports the claim and the court is satisfied to direct repayment on the facts of the case.

---