Writ jurisdiction can override Rule 11 limitation where excise duty was recovered without authority of law, securing refund entitlement.

Rule 11 limitation under the Central Excise Rules could restrict departmental refund proceedings, but it could not bar relief in writ jurisdiction where duty had been recovered without authority of law. The Court noted that the refund claim arose from excess duty collected under Tariff Item 68, while the goods were accepted as falling under Tariff Item 15(A)(2). On that basis, the refusal of refund solely on limitation was unsustainable, and the petitioners were held entitled to refund of the excess duty paid.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim could be rejected as time-barred under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 despite the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The refund arose from duty collected under Tariff Item 68, whereas the authority had accepted that the goods were liable under Tariff Item 15(A)(2). The Court held that the limitation under Rule 11 restricted the departmental authority in refund proceedings, but it could not bar relief in writ jurisdiction where duty had been recovered without authority of law. The petitioners had established entitlement to refund of excess duty paid, and the refusal solely on limitation was unsustainable.

Conclusion: The limitation defence under Rule 11 could not defeat the refund claim in writ jurisdiction, and the petitioners were entitled to refund.

---