Refund of excess excise duty cannot be denied when approved classification and timely claim satisfy the statutory requirements.

Refund of excess excise duty was held maintainable where the claim was filed within six months under Section 11B and the approved classification list already granted the benefit of Notification No. 118/75. The Superintendent could not use endorsements in RT-12 returns to override the approved classification and deny exemption. On those facts, the protest requirement under Rule 233B was treated as inapplicable because protest was recorded in the challan and the refund claim was timely. The refund machinery under Section 11B could not be defeated where duty had been paid under an assessment inconsistent with the approved classification.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim was barred by limitation and whether compliance with the protest requirement could be insisted upon where the classification list claiming exemption had already been approved.

Analysis: The duty was paid on 26-5-1983 and 31-5-1983, and the refund application was filed on 8-9-1983, which was within six months under Section 11B. The classification list claiming benefit of Notification No. 118/75 had already been approved by the proper officer, and the Superintendent could not, by endorsement in the RT 12 returns, override that approved classification and deny the exemption. In that context, the procedural requirement of protest under Rule 233B was held to be inapplicable, since protest in the challan and refund claim within time were sufficient on the facts. The refund machinery under Section 11B could not be made nugatory where excess duty had been paid pursuant to an assessment not in accordance with the approved classification.

Conclusion: The refund claim was within time and was maintainable. The rejection of the refund on limitation and protest grounds was unsustainable and the assessee was entitled to the refund.

---