Refund limitation and disputed post-manufacturing expenses barred relief in writ jurisdiction under excise law.

A refund claim under Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 was held to be barred by limitation where the application was filed beyond the prescribed time, and the statutory authority was bound to reject it. A further claim that excise duty had been paid on post-manufacturing expenses raised disputed questions of fact and liability, which could not be resolved in writ jurisdiction and required proper civil adjudication. The refund was therefore not granted in the writ petition, and the challenge to the rejection order failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim was barred by limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, and whether the petitioner was entitled to seek refund in writ jurisdiction on the basis of alleged post-manufacturing expenses.

Analysis: The refund application was made beyond the time prescribed by Section 11B, and the statutory authority was bound to reject a time-barred claim. The claim that excise duty had been paid on post-manufacturing expenses involved a disputed question of fact and liability, which required adjudication in proper civil proceedings rather than in writ jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The refund claim could not be granted in the writ petition, and the challenge to the rejection order failed.

---