Presumption of postal delivery saved a timely rebate claim, and writ relief was allowed despite delay and alternative remedy objections.

A rebate claim sent within the prescribed period by post was not defeated by the department's alleged non-receipt, because a properly posted letter carries a presumption of delivery unless rebutted by reliable evidence; mere office records were insufficient to displace that presumption. The Court also accepted the explanation for approaching writ jurisdiction after delay, and held that the existence of an alternative statutory remedy did not bar relief where the levy was treated as unauthorized and the refund claim had been rejected on a technical ground. The impugned orders were quashed and refund of the rebate amount was directed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner's rebate claim was barred by limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 despite the claim having been sent within time under certificate of posting. (ii) Whether the writ petition was liable to be rejected on the ground of delay or availability of an alternative statutory remedy.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioner's rebate claim was barred by limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 despite the claim having been sent within time under certificate of posting.

Analysis: Rule 12 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and Notification No. 171/81-C.E. required a rebate application in Form B with supporting shipping documents within the prescribed period. The petitioner had already dispatched a rebate claim by letter within the limitation period and produced proof of posting. A letter duly posted carries a presumption of due delivery unless rebutted by reliable evidence. Mere office records showing non-receipt were held insufficient to displace that presumption. The Court further held that the claim could not be defeated on a narrow procedural approach where the petitioner was otherwise entitled to rebate on merits and the duty had been collected without authority of law.

Conclusion: The limitation objection failed and the rebate claim was held to be within time.

Issue (ii): Whether the writ petition was liable to be rejected on the ground of delay or availability of an alternative statutory remedy.

Analysis: The petitioner explained the delay in approaching the Court by showing that the relevant orders had been misplaced in counsel's office and were later traced. The Court accepted the explanation and found that delay had been sufficiently accounted for. Since the underlying levy was treated as unauthorized and the petitioner had already been denied refund on a technical ground, the existence of an alternative remedy did not preclude writ relief in the circumstances of the case.

Conclusion: The writ petition was held maintainable and the objection based on delay and alternative remedy was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The Court directed quashing of the impugned orders and ordered refund of the rebate amount to the petitioner with no order as to costs.

Ratio Decidendi: A rebate claim sent within time by post is not defeated merely because the department denies receipt, unless the presumption of delivery is rebutted by reliable evidence; a technical limitation objection should not be used to deny refund where the claimant is otherwise entitled on merits.

---