Erroneous rebate recovery was time-barred where export rebate could not be treated as a provisional refund.

Recovery of rebate already granted on exported sugar was subject to the statutory limitation for erroneous payments. Because the export particulars were already in the department's records and the rebate had been granted after export, the payment could not be treated as a provisional refund to avoid limitation. The demand was governed by section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, and the earlier analogous limitation under rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944; on that basis, the 1982 recovery notice was issued beyond time and could not be sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand for recovery of rebate already granted was barred by limitation and whether the payment could be treated as provisional so as to avoid the statutory time limit.

Analysis: The rebate relating to exported sugar had been granted after the exports were already effected and the department had the relevant export particulars in its records. On those facts, the payment could not be characterised as a provisional refund. The recovery of an erroneous payment was therefore governed by the statutory limitation in section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, and the earlier analogous limitation under rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The demand issued in 1982 was beyond the permissible period. There was also no provision in central excise law for treating such refund as provisional merely because the department had followed an extra-statutory practice.

Conclusion: The demand was time-barred and could not be sustained. The order setting it aside was upheld, and the appeal failed.

---