Refund limitation for handloom cess follows excise machinery rules and runs from payment date, not later exemption notification.

Refund of handloom cess following a retrospective exemption notification was governed by the excise machinery provisions because the levy was treated as duty of excise under Section 3(2) of the Khadi and Other Handloom Industries Development (Additional Excise Duty on Cloth) Act, 1953. The limitation under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 therefore applied mutatis mutandis, and time was to run from the date of payment of cess, not from the later notification. On that basis, the refund claim was time-barred and not admissible.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim for handloom cess was governed by Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and therefore barred by limitation.

Analysis: The refund arose from a retrospective exemption notification, but the governing levy was treated as a duty of excise under Section 3(2) of the Khadi and Other Handloom Industries Development (Additional Excise Duty on Cloth) Act, 1953. Since that provision required levy and collection in the same manner as excise duty under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, the machinery provisions applicable to excise duty, including the refund limitation under Rule 11, applied mutatis mutandis. The limitation period was to be reckoned from the date of payment of cess, and not from the date of the later notification. On that basis, the claim fell outside the prescribed time limit.

Conclusion: The refund claim was barred by limitation under Rule 11 and was not admissible.

---