Excise refund claims follow Section 11B unless linked to provisional assessment under Rule 9B(5).

An independent excise refund claim is governed by Section 11B unless the assessee shows that the duty was paid provisionally and later adjusted under Rule 9B(5). The Rule 9B(5) exception applies only where the refund is a direct consequence of provisional assessment and not to an ordinary refund claim based on an exemption or pending classification dispute. On the record, provisional payment and invocation of Rule 9B were not established, so the factual basis for treating the claim as outside the statutory refund regime remained unproved and had to be shown before the departmental authorities.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the refund claim was barred by limitation under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and whether the claim could be treated as one arising from provisional payment; (ii) whether Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act applied to the refund claim, or whether the claim fell within the exception relating to adjustments under Rule 9B(5) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Issue (i): whether the refund claim was barred by limitation under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and whether the claim could be treated as one arising from provisional payment.

Analysis: The limitation question turned on whether the duty paid during the relevant period was provisional in nature and whether the procedure for provisional assessment had been followed. The record did not show material establishing that the payments were provisional or that Rule 9B had been invoked. The Court indicated that this factual foundation had to be proved before the departmental authorities before the refund could be considered on that basis.

Conclusion: The claim was not accepted as barred or non-barred on the present record, and the assessee was left to establish provisional payment before the departmental authorities.

Issue (ii): whether Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act applied to the refund claim, or whether the claim fell within the exception relating to adjustments under Rule 9B(5) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Analysis: The exception recognised for recoveries or refunds consequential to adjustment under Rule 9B(5) did not apply because the refund sought was an independent claim based on the exemption notification and not a mere adjustment on final assessment under provisional assessment. In that situation, the refund was governed by Section 11B, and the governing principle stated in Mafatlal Industries was held applicable. The Court distinguished claims arising directly from Rule 9B(5) from independent refund claims pursued after adjudicatory challenge.

Conclusion: Section 11B applied to the refund claim, and the Rule 9B(5) exception was not attracted on the facts shown.

Final Conclusion: The refund dispute was governed by the statutory refund regime, with no automatic exclusion from Section 11B, and the matter had to be considered further on the factual question whether the duty payments were provisional.

Ratio Decidendi: An independent refund claim arising from payment of excise duty is governed by Section 11B unless it is shown to be a consequence of provisional assessment adjusted under Rule 9B(5); the Rule 9B(5) exception does not extend to ordinary refund claims merely because classification approval was pending.

---