Refund claim limitation under Central Excise Rule 11 satisfied when application was addressed to the proper authority and filed in time.

A refund application under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 is treated as duly made within the prescribed six months when it is addressed to the proper authority and filed through the departmental route within time. The Court held that presentation to the Superintendent, who verified and forwarded the claim as time-bound, was consistent with existing practice. Later physical receipt in the Assistant Collector's office was regarded as accidental and not attributable to the assessee. On that basis, the refund claim was accepted as within limitation and validly made.

---

---

Issues: Whether a refund application under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, when addressed to the Assistant Collector but presented through the Superintendent and received in the Assistant Collector's office later, is to be treated as duly made within the prescribed six months.

Analysis: The refund claim was addressed to the Assistant Collector and was filed in the Range Office within the relevant period. The Superintendent processed the claim, verified it, and forwarded it with the statement that it had been received within time. The Court treated the route through the Superintendent as consistent with the existing practice and held that the decisive fact was that the application had been made to the proper authority by being addressed to the Assistant Collector. The later physical receipt in the Assistant Collector's office was held to be accidental and not attributable to the assessee. The Court therefore accepted that the claim was within time under Rule 11.

Conclusion: The refund application was validly made and was within limitation; the assessee succeeded.

---