Statutory limitation governs excise refund claims; general limitation for money paid under mistake of law cannot extend the filing period.

Refund claims under the Central Excise law must be decided within the statutory limitation prescribed by that law or the relevant rules. The Tribunal cannot import the general limitation under the Limitation Act or Section 72 of the Indian Contract Act to enlarge the refund period for duty alleged to have been recovered without authority of law. Relief granted in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 does not control departmental proceedings, which remain bound by the statute. The rejection of the refund claim as time-barred was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether a refund claim before excise authorities and the Tribunal, alleging recovery of duty without authority of law, can be entertained outside the limitation prescribed under the Central excise law by invoking the Limitation Act and the doctrine of money paid under mistake of law.

Analysis: The decision distinguished writ relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India from proceedings before authorities acting under the Central excise statute. It noted that the High Court rulings relied upon had granted relief in the exercise of prerogative jurisdiction, without being confined by the statutory refund periods, whereas departmental authorities and the Tribunal are bound to act within the framework of the governing enactments and rules. The Tribunal also relied on the approach accepted in refund matters under the Customs Act and on the view that authorities constituted under the statute must decide refund claims in accordance with the limitation prescribed by the statute or the rules, and cannot import the general limitation period applicable to suits for recovery of money paid under mistake of law.

Conclusion: The refund claim was required to be dealt with under the limitation prescribed by the Central excise law, and not under the Limitation Act or Section 72 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The rejection of the claim as time-barred was upheld.

---