Refund under excise exemption notification required fresh reconsideration; limitation could not defeat the claim on these facts

An exemption notification under central excise law was held applicable to the petitioners, making their claim for refund of excess duty maintainable. The refund representation had not been properly examined, and the refusal orders were found defective because they did not address the claim in its proper legal perspective. The authorities were required to reconsider the refund claim after granting a personal hearing and passing a reasoned order in accordance with law. On the facts stated, limitation was not to defeat reconsideration of the claim, and the impugned orders were treated as unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioners, being covered by the exemption notification, were entitled to refund of excess central excise duty and whether the respondents were justified in refusing to consider the refund claim on limitation or procedural grounds.

Analysis: The exemption under Notification No. 105/80-CE, as amended, was held applicable to the petitioners. The Court found that the refund representation dated 7-4-1984 had not been properly considered and that the order dated 16-6-1984, as well as the appellate order dated 23-2-1985, suffered from defects in approach and failed to address the claim in its proper perspective. The authorities were required to reconsider the matter after giving the petitioners a personal hearing and passing a reasoned order in accordance with law. The Court also made it clear that limitation should not defeat the reconsideration of the claim in the facts of the case.

Conclusion: The petitioners were entitled to have their refund claim reconsidered, and the impugned orders were unsustainable.

---