Excise duty refund claims must satisfy limitation and proof of protest; writ relief will not bypass an available statutory appeal.

Refund of excise duty had to be claimed within six months under the statutory limitation, unless payment under protest was proved in the prescribed manner. Because no written protest acknowledgement or gate-pass endorsement was produced, the payment could not be treated as made under protest and the time-barred portion of the refund claim failed. The writ petition was also not entertained because an effective statutory appeal was available and had not been pursued. The departmental refusal to refund the delayed amount was therefore upheld on both limitation and maintainability grounds.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the claim for refund of excise duty was barred by limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and whether the petitioner had proved payment under protest so as to avoid the six-month limit. (ii) Whether the writ petition was maintainable despite availability of the statutory appeal under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Issue (i): Whether the claim for refund of excise duty was barred by limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and whether the petitioner had proved payment under protest so as to avoid the six-month limit.

Analysis: Refund under Section 11B had to be claimed within six months from the relevant date unless the duty was paid under protest. Rule 233B required either a written protest acknowledged by the proper officer or an endorsement on the gate pass showing duty paid under protest. The petitioner failed to produce any such acknowledgement or endorsement. The demand for refund was also made only after the relevant period, and the record showed that only the amount falling within limitation had been refunded.

Conclusion: The claim for refund beyond the six-month period was barred, and the petitioner was not entitled to treat the payment as made under protest.

Issue (ii): Whether the writ petition was maintainable despite availability of the statutory appeal under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis: The order impugned was appealable under Section 35, and the petitioner had been aware of the appellate remedy but did not pursue it. In these circumstances, the writ remedy was not fit to be invoked to bypass the statutory appellate mechanism.

Conclusion: The petition was not maintainable in view of the available alternative statutory remedy.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the refund order failed both on limitation and on maintainability, and the departmental order refusing refund of the time-barred amount was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: A refund claim under the excise law must be made within the statutory limitation unless payment under protest is proved in the manner prescribed, and where an effective statutory appeal lies, writ jurisdiction will ordinarily not be used to bypass that remedy.

---