Excise refund claims through departmental channels remain subject to statutory limitation, with only the timely portion allowed.

Excise duty refund claims routed through departmental machinery are governed by the statutory limitation under Section 11-B of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944, and cannot be treated as outside the refund scheme merely because the application was made before departmental authorities. The Tribunal also noted that a limitation plea may be raised in appeal. On that footing, the bulk of the refund claim was time-barred and the order allowing it was set aside. The payment made on 26-6-1980 was treated separately, not hit by limitation, and refund of that amount was directed to be sanctioned.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the refund claims for excise duty were barred by limitation under Section 11-B of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 when the duty had been paid into the excise department and refund was sought through departmental machinery. (ii) Whether the refund amount of Rs. 3,504 paid on 26-6-1980 was hit by the time bar.

Issue (i): Whether the refund claims for excise duty were barred by limitation under Section 11-B of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 when the duty had been paid into the excise department and refund was sought through departmental machinery.

Analysis: The claim was treated as one made within the excise administration and not as a claim outside the statutory scheme. The Tribunal held that a plea of limitation could be raised in appeal and that it was empowered to consider a ground not urged below. It further held that the duty had been paid under the head of central excise duty, the refund was sought before departmental authorities, and the prescribed refund forms were used. On that basis, the claim fell within the departmental law and the statutory limitation under Section 11-B applied. The distinction sought on the footing that the assessee had approached the Asstt. Collector in an administrative capacity was rejected.

Conclusion: The bulk of the refund claim was barred by limitation and the Collector (Appeals)' order allowing it was set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether the refund amount of Rs. 3,504 paid on 26-6-1980 was hit by the time bar.

Analysis: The Tribunal accepted the limited position that the payment made on 26-6-1980 was outside the limitation objection that defeated the rest of the claim. Accordingly, that portion of the refund was treated differently from the balance of the claim.

Conclusion: The refund of Rs. 3,504 was held admissible and was directed to be sanctioned.

Final Conclusion: The departmental appeal succeeded in substance, but the refund was sustained only to the limited extent of the amount not affected by limitation, and the cross-objection was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Where excise duty has been paid into the departmental account and refund is claimed through the excise machinery, the claim is governed by the statutory refund limitation and cannot be recast as a purely administrative demand to avoid that bar; a tribunal may also consider a limitation plea raised for the first time in appeal.

---