Excise duty refund crystallised by appellate order cannot be barred by general limitation where refund arises under Section 11B(3).

Refund of excise duty crystallised by an appellate order could not be defeated by the six-month limitation in Section 11B(1). Where duty becomes refundable because an appellate or revisional order alters the assessment position, Section 11B(3) requires the refund to be made without insisting on a fresh application within the general limitation period. The appellate finding that galvanising did not amount to manufacture had already created the refund entitlement, so the refusal on limitation grounds was incorrect and the refund was payable to the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund of excise duty arising from an appellate order could be denied as time-barred by invoking the general limitation in Section 11B(1), or whether Section 11B(3) required refund without a fresh claim.

Analysis: The refund became due because of the appellate order holding that galvanising did not amount to manufacture. Section 11B(3) governs situations where duty refund arises as a result of an order in appeal or revision, and in such a case the Assistant Collector is bound to refund the amount without insisting on a separate application within the six-month period contemplated by Section 11B(1). The limitation contained in Section 11B(1) therefore could not be used to defeat the refund already crystallised by the appellate decision.

Conclusion: The refusal to refund the amount on the ground of limitation was incorrect, and the refund was held payable to the assessee.

---