Refund limitation under Section 11B does not apply where the claim falls outside the defined relevant date categories.

A refund claim arising under a deemed credit order was held not to attract the limitation period in Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, because it did not fall within the specific "relevant date" categories in that provision. The Tribunal also treated compliance with Notification No. 85/87 as procedural, holding that a procedural lapse could not defeat an otherwise substantive refund entitlement. On both grounds, the departmental challenge failed and the refund claim was sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the limitation period under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 applied to a refund claim arising under the deemed credit order. (ii) Whether non-compliance with Notification No. 85/87 could defeat the refund claim despite the substantive entitlement.

Issue (i): Whether the limitation period under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 applied to a refund claim arising under the deemed credit order.

Analysis: The refund claim was not one of the cases specifically covered by the explanation to the definition of "relevant date" in Section 11B(5). The provision enumerated specific situations for refund claims, but the claim arising under deemed credit did not fall within those categories. In the absence of an applicable "relevant date" under that provision, the statutory limitation in Section 11B could not be extended to the facts of the case.

Conclusion: The limitation under Section 11B did not apply to the refund claim, and this objection failed against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether non-compliance with Notification No. 85/87 could defeat the refund claim despite the substantive entitlement.

Analysis: The requirement under the notification was treated as procedural in nature. The substantive right to refund could not be denied merely on that ground. The Tribunal followed the view that a procedural lapse in relation to the notification did not extinguish the underlying refund entitlement.

Conclusion: Non-compliance with Notification No. 85/87 did not defeat the refund claim, and this issue was also decided against the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The departmental appeals failed on both grounds, and the refund entitlement was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a refund claim does not fall within the specific categories for "relevant date" under Section 11B, the limitation under that provision cannot be applied, and a procedural notification requirement cannot override a substantive refund right.

---