Statutory limitation governs refund claims, and subordinate notifications cannot override Section 11B time limits.

Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is treated as the substantive limitation provision for refund and rebate claims, with the relevant date linked to the export-related event contemplated by the statute. A subordinate notification or rules made under the Act cannot override or curtail that statutory limitation period, but must operate only in aid of the parent statute. The analysis follows the binding Supreme Court principle on the applicability of Section 11B to rebate and refund claims, so the notification-based time limit cannot displace the statutory rule.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim was governed by the one-year limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and whether the notification-based time limit could prevail over the substantive statutory provision.

Analysis: Section 11B was treated as the substantive provision governing refund and rebate claims, and the relevant date for limitation was held to be linked to the export-related event contemplated by the statute. The subordinate notification and the rules made under the Act were held to operate in aid of the parent statute and could not displace the statutory limitation period. The decision was taken to follow the binding principle already laid down by the Supreme Court on the applicability of Section 11B to rebate/refund claims.

Conclusion: The refund claim was held to be governed by Section 11B, and the assessee's claim was not liable to be denied on the basis of the notification alone.

Final Conclusion: The assessee succeeded in the refund dispute, and the Revenue's challenge to the grant of refund failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a refund or rebate claim is governed by a substantive statutory limitation, subordinate legislation cannot curtail or override that limitation, and the statutory provision must control the claim.

---