Supplementary refund claims are fresh claims and remain subject to ordinary limitation unless linked to appellate relief or provisional assessment.

Supplementary rebate or refund claims founded on a basis different from the original claim are treated as fresh claims and do not automatically fall within the refund dispensation for amounts arising from an appellate or revisional order. Unless the later claim directly flows from that order, the ordinary limitation period applies. The text also notes that provisional assessment cannot be assumed without proof of a request, bond, or other material showing assessment under the provisional procedure. In the absence of such evidence, the extended limitation argument fails and the claim remains time-barred.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the supplementary rebate claims were covered by section 11B(3) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 as a refund flowing from the appellate order and therefore not barred by limitation; (ii) whether the claims could be treated as within time on the footing that the excise assessments were provisional.

Issue (i): Whether the supplementary rebate claims were covered by section 11B(3) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 as a refund flowing from the appellate order and therefore not barred by limitation.

Analysis: The supplementary claims were founded on a basis different from the original rebate claim and did not arise directly from the earlier appellate order. Section 11B(3) permits refund without a fresh claim only where the refund becomes due as a result of an appellate or revisional order. A claim that is independent in foundation and computation is outside that limited dispensation and must satisfy the normal limitation rule.

Conclusion: The supplementary claims were not saved by section 11B(3) and were liable to be tested under the ordinary limitation provisions.

Issue (ii): Whether the claims could be treated as within time on the footing that the excise assessments were provisional.

Analysis: The record did not establish that the assessments were provisional in the sense required by Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules. There was no sufficient material showing a request for provisional assessment, execution of bond, or other basis to treat the rebate as provisional. In the absence of proof of provisional assessment, the extended limitation point could not be invoked.

Conclusion: The claims were barred by limitation and the plea of provisional assessment failed.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the refund claims were held not maintainable on limitation grounds.

Ratio Decidendi: A supplementary refund or rebate claim based on a different foundation from the original claim is a fresh claim and, unless it directly arises from an appellate order or is supported by proved provisional assessment, it remains subject to the ordinary limitation period.

Concurring Opinion: V.T. Raghavachari, Member (J), agreed that the appeal should be allowed.

Dissenting Opinion: G. Sankaran, Sr. Vice-President, held that the supplementary claims were not barred and that the appeal should be dismissed.

---