Refund limitation and unlawful duty collection: excess excise duty paid without authority of law remains refundable despite a limitation plea.

Refund claims under Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act were treated as timely where they were filed within six months from the actual dates of excess payment, since the date of payment of duty was the relevant date for claims outside the special categories in the statute. The provisional assessment route did not apply because the excess refund was not linked to a statutory final assessment adjustment. The text also states that duty collected without authority of law, including on goods not actually manufactured or cleared, cannot be retained on a limitation objection, and the unlawfully collected amount remains refundable.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the refund application was barred by limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944; and (ii) whether duty realised in excess without authority of law could be refused on the ground of limitation.

Issue (i): whether the refund application was barred by limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.

Analysis: The refund claim arose from excess duty payments made on the dates of payment of the excess instalments. For cases not covered by the special clauses in the definition of "relevant date", Section 11B treats the date of payment of duty as the relevant date. The provision relating to provisional assessment did not apply on the facts, because the excess refund claimed was not the result of an adjustment following final assessment in the manner contemplated by the statute.

Conclusion: The refund application was within time and was not barred by limitation.

Issue (ii): whether duty realised in excess without authority of law could be refused on the ground of limitation.

Analysis: The excess duty had been collected on a quantity not actually manufactured or cleared, and the levy to that extent was without jurisdiction. Where money is realised without authority of law, the bar of limitation in the refund provision does not defeat the claim, and the authority is bound to return the unlawfully collected sum.

Conclusion: The excess duty was refundable and could not be retained on a plea of limitation.

Final Conclusion: The order directing refund was upheld, and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A refund claim is not time-barred where it is filed within six months from the actual date of excess payment, and in any event limitation under the refund provision cannot protect a collection of duty made without authority of law.

---