Statutory limitation governs excise refund claims; general limitation law cannot override refund applications before the departmental authority.

Refund claims for excess excise duty paid before the departmental authority remain governed by the statutory limitation under the Central Excise law and rules, and cannot be shifted to the general law of limitation by arguing that the payment was not excise duty. The Tribunal noted that protest before 22-7-1977 was not established and the payment was not shown to be provisional, so the claim continued to fall within Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. It treated the Supreme Court position as settling that departmental refund applications must comply with the excise limitation scheme. The reference application was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether a refund claim for excess excise duty paid before the departmental authority is governed by the limitation period prescribed under the Central Excise law and Rules, or by the general law of limitation on the footing that the excess payment was not excise duty.

Analysis: The Tribunal reaffirmed its earlier finding that the applicants had not established any protest prior to 22-7-1977 and that the payment was not shown to have been provisional. It further relied on the settled position that refund claims made before departmental authorities must be confined to the statutory scheme and that the limitation prescribed by the Central Excise law cannot be bypassed by invoking the general law of limitation. The Tribunal treated the decisions of the Supreme Court as conclusively settling that the departmental authority is bound by the statutory limitation applicable to refund applications under the excise enactment and rules.

Conclusion: The claim remained subject to the statutory limitation under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and no reference to the High Court was warranted. The reference application was rejected.

---