Vested refund rights and prospective amendment: earlier excise limitation period governed the claim, not the later shorter limit.

A refund claim for excess central excise duty paid before 6-8-1977 was analysed under the limitation framework in the old Rule 11 read with Rule 173J of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The text states that the refund right arose while the earlier rule was in force and was a vested, accrued right. It further notes that the amended Rule 11 operated prospectively and could not extinguish existing refund rights absent express or necessary implication. On that basis, the applicable limitation remained the one-year period under the earlier rule, rather than the six-month period introduced by the amendment, so the claim was not time-barred.

---

---

Issues: Whether a refund claim for excess duty paid before 6-8-1977 was governed by the old Rule 11 read with Rule 173J of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, carrying a one-year limitation, or by the amended Rule 11 prescribing a six-month limitation.

Analysis: The right to claim refund arose when the old Rule 11, read with Rule 173J, was in force. That right was treated as a vested and existing right. The amended Rule 11 was held to operate prospectively and not to take away accrued refund rights unless there was express or necessary implication to that effect. On that basis, the limitation applicable was the one-year period under the earlier rule, not the six-month period introduced by the amendment.

Conclusion: The refund claim was within limitation under the old rule and could not be rejected as time-barred under the amended Rule 11.

---