Excise refund claims must satisfy limitation and be filed by the duty-paying manufacturer to be maintainable.

A refund claim under excise law must be filed within the prescribed limitation period; a claim made about two and a half years after duty payment was time-barred and not maintainable. Refund entitlement also lies only with the person who actually manufactured the goods and paid the duty; where the appellants were not the duty-paying manufacturer, they had no legal right to seek the refund. The departmental position was therefore upheld on both limitation and entitlement.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the refund claim was barred by limitation under the Central Excise Rules, 1944. (ii) Whether the appellants, not being the manufacturers who paid the duty, were entitled to claim refund.

Issue (i): Whether the refund claim was barred by limitation under the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Analysis: The claim was filed long after the duty had been paid, far beyond the prescribed period. On the dates stated, the interval between payment of duty and filing of the refund application was about two and a half years, which rendered the claim time-barred.

Conclusion: The refund claim was barred by limitation and was not maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellants, not being the manufacturers who paid the duty, were entitled to claim refund.

Analysis: The duty had been paid by another manufacturer who had cleared the goods. A refund, if any, could only be claimed by the person who manufactured the goods and paid the duty, and not by the appellants, who had no legal entitlement to the amount.

Conclusion: The appellants were not entitled to the refund claim.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on both limitation and lack of entitlement to seek refund, and the departmental position was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: A refund claim under the excise law must be filed within the prescribed limitation period and can be maintained only by the person who paid the duty and is legally entitled to the refund.

---