Writ refund of excise duty barred where appealable classification order was unchallenged and limitation had expired

Excise duty paid after an appealable classification order could not be recovered in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 where the assessee did not pursue the appellate remedy and failed to show that the levy was without authority of law or paid under a common mistake of law. The court also noted that the assessee had itself disputed the tariff classification, which undermined any claim of shared mistake. Separately, a refund claim filed beyond the limitation period under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules was held to be time-barred and could not be entertained merely because a later departmental view on classification was favourable. The writ challenge to the refusal of refund therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner was entitled to invoke writ jurisdiction under Article 226 for refund of excise duty paid under protest despite not having challenged the original classification order in appeal; (ii) Whether the refund application was liable to be rejected as time-barred under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioner was entitled to invoke writ jurisdiction under Article 226 for refund of excise duty paid under protest despite not having challenged the original classification order in appeal.

Analysis: The duty was paid after the department had passed an appealable classification order, and the petitioner did not avail of the appellate remedy. On the admitted facts, the collection of duty could not be treated as unauthorised in law. The petition also failed to establish a common mistake of law, because the petitioner itself had disputed the correct tariff classification and cannot claim that duty was paid on a mistaken assumption shared by both sides.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to invoke Article 226 for refund on the pleaded facts.

Issue (ii): Whether the refund application was liable to be rejected as time-barred under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules.

Analysis: The refund claim was admittedly filed beyond the period prescribed by Rule 11. Once the statutory limitation had expired, the claim could not be entertained merely because the petitioner later relied on a favourable departmental view on classification.

Conclusion: The refund application was rightly rejected as barred by limitation.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the rejection of refund failed, and the petitioner obtained no relief in the writ petition.

Ratio Decidendi: Excise duty voluntarily paid pursuant to an unchallenged appealable order cannot be recovered in writ jurisdiction unless the levy or collection is shown to be without authority of law or under a common mistake of law, and a refund claim filed beyond the statutory limitation is not maintainable.

---