Restitution for unlawful excise collection prevails over refund limitation where duty was levied outside the charging provision.

Refund of excise duty collected without authority of law was held to be a restitutionary claim, not a routine refund governed by Rule 173J of the Central Excise Rules. Because the amount arose from trade discount excluded from assessable value under Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, the levy was outside the charging provision and therefore illegal. Rule 173J applies only where duty has been paid under lawful authority and could not bar recovery of money collected under mistake of law. The refund claim was maintainable and refusal to refund was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim for excise duty collected without authority of law was barred by the limitation prescribed under Rule 173J of the Central Excise Rules.

Analysis: The duty sought to be refunded arose from trade discount, which was not part of the assessable value under Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. A levy made outside the charging provision is a levy without authority of law. Rule 173J governs only refund claims where duty has been paid under lawful authority and cannot control a claim for return of money illegally collected. Such a claim is in the nature of restitution and falls within the principle of payment under mistake of law.

Conclusion: The refund claim was not barred by Rule 173J and was maintainable; the refusal to refund was unsustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: A refund claim for money collected without authority of law is one of restitution, not a refund governed by the procedural limitation applicable to lawful levies.

---