Refund claims for excess excise duty must be examined under amended law by the competent authority, not directly granted in writs.

The amended refund provisions under the Central Excises and Customs Laws (Amendment) Act, 1991 were treated as governing claims for excess central excise duty, so writ jurisdiction was not used to directly grant refund on the merits. The court declined to examine the substantive objections, including limitation and unjust enrichment, and held that the competent authority should assess the claims under the amended statutory framework. The rejection orders were therefore quashed, and the claimants were left at liberty to pursue refund before the competent authority, which was directed to reconsider the claims afresh in accordance with law, including limitation.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claims for excess central excise duty could be directly granted in writ jurisdiction in view of the amended refund provisions, and whether the impugned rejection orders should be quashed to enable consideration of the claims under the amended law including limitation.

Analysis: The amended provisions introduced by the Central Excises and Customs Laws (Amendment) Act, 1991 were treated as governing the manner and conditions for refund. In light of those amendments, the Court declined to adjudicate the merits of the refund claims or the respondents' objections, including limitation and unjust enrichment, and considered it appropriate that the competent authority examine the claims under the amended statutory framework.

Conclusion: The impugned orders were quashed and the petitioners were left at liberty to move the competent authority, which was directed to consider the refund claims afresh in accordance with law, including limitation.

---