Erroneous refund limitation under excise law barred recovery of excess rebate where facts were already known to the department.

Excess rebate paid on sugar exported without payment of duty was treated as an erroneous refund rather than a provisional payment, because there was no statutory basis for provisional refund and the department already knew the material facts from statutory records and monthly returns. On that footing, recovery was governed by the six-month limitation under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. As the demand was raised beyond that period, it was held time-barred and the department's appeal failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand for recovery of excess rebate paid on sugar exported without payment of duty was barred by limitation under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Analysis: The rebate notification operated as an exemption or concession from duty and, on principle, could not apply to quantities on which no duty was payable because they had been exported without payment of duty. However, the department had knowledge of the exports from the statutory records and monthly returns long before the rebate was sanctioned, and the facts were not concealed. In such circumstances, the excess payment, if any, amounted to an erroneous refund governed by Rule 10, which prescribed a six-month period for recovery. The contention that the payment was merely provisional was rejected because there was no statutory provision for such provisional refund and the relevant facts were already known to the department when the rebate was paid.

Conclusion: The demand was time-barred under Rule 10 and was rightly set aside. The department's appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where excess duty rebate is paid with full knowledge of the material facts, recovery must be made within the limitation period applicable to erroneous refunds under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and cannot be treated as a provisional refund in the absence of statutory authority.

---