Excise refund recovery cannot rest on trade notices or retrospective grounds that do not cover the entire refunded period.

Excise recovery could not be sustained where the refund covered clearances spanning periods before and after 1-3-1966, because a demand cannot retrospectively claw back amounts on a legal basis that does not cover the entire refunded period. Recovery also could not rest on Collectorate trade notices or administrative instructions treating the products as flats, since tariff expressions were undefined, classification remained a quasi-judicial function, and subordinate instructions could not override the statute or control dispute resolution. The repayment order was set aside, though fresh action on lawful grounds was left open.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the excise authorities could recover the entire refunded amount by relying on the view that the goods were outside Item 26AA(ia) from 1-3-1966. (ii) Whether recovery could validly rest on Collectorate trade notices and instructions treating the products as flats.

Issue (i): Whether the excise authorities could recover the entire refunded amount by relying on the view that the goods were outside Item 26AA(ia) from 1-3-1966.

Analysis: The refund related to clearances over a period extending before and after 1-3-1966. Even on the assumption that the goods fell outside the tariff item from that later date, the refund for the earlier period could not be clawed back on that footing. A recovery notice must match the legal basis on which the refund is said to have been wrongly granted and cannot be made to operate retrospectively beyond that basis.

Conclusion: The attempted recovery on this ground was not sustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether recovery could validly rest on Collectorate trade notices and instructions treating the products as flats.

Analysis: The expressions used in the tariff entry were not defined in the Act, and no statutory standard was laid down for distinguishing the products. The trade notice merely supplied supplementary guidance and could not enlarge or control the statutory entry. The power of assessment was quasi-judicial and had to be exercised independently by the assessing authority; administrative instructions under Rule 233 could not bind subordinate officers on questions of classification or dispute resolution, and any wider reading would be inconsistent with Section 35 of the Act.

Conclusion: The recovery based on the trade notice and instructions was invalid.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order directing repayment of the refunded excise duty was set aside, while leaving it open to the authorities to proceed afresh on lawful grounds if otherwise permissible.

Ratio Decidendi: Excise recovery cannot be founded on a trade notice or administrative instruction so as to override the statute or control quasi-judicial classification, and a refund already granted cannot be recovered on a ground that does not legally cover the entire refunded period.

---