Refund limitation does not apply to mistaken excess excise deposits made without legal liability.

An inadvertent double payment made without any underlying excise liability was treated as a revenue deposit, not as duty of excise. On that basis, the refund claim was held outside the limitation in section 11B of the Central Excise Act, because the amount had been collected without authority of law and could not be retained merely due to expiry of the duty-refund period. The refund claim was therefore maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the time limit under section 11B of the Central Excise Act applies to refund of an amount deposited twice by mistake when the appellant had no liability to pay it.

Analysis: The amount was paid twice due to an inadvertent clerical mistake and was therefore treated as a deposit made without legal liability. The refund claim was held to relate to a revenue deposit and not to duty of excise as such. On that basis, the statutory limitation under section 11B was found inapplicable. The decision relied on the principle that money collected without authority of law cannot be retained merely because a refund claim is made after the period prescribed for duty refunds.

Conclusion: The limitation under section 11B does not apply to the mistaken excess deposit, and the refund claim is maintainable.

---