Excess duty payment on RT-12 may be adjusted under Rule 173I, not barred as a Section 11B refund claim.

Excess payment made over the duty assessed on RT-12 could be corrected by adjustment under Rule 173I of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, where the approved classification list granted exemption and the goods were correctly assessable at nil duty. The payment was treated as an amount paid in excess of the assessment, not a refund of duty in the strict sense, so Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 did not govern the claim. The limitation period under Section 11B was therefore inapplicable, and the claim could not be rejected as time barred. The assessee was entitled to adjustment of the excess amount.

---

---

Issues: Whether the amount paid in excess of the duty assessed on RT-12 could be adjusted by the Superintendent under Rule 173I of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, or whether the assessee was required to file a refund claim under Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and the claim was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The classification list had been approved granting exemption, and the goods were correctly assessable at nil duty. The excess amount paid was therefore not a refund of duty in the strict sense, but a payment made in excess of the amount assessed. In such a situation, the matter fell within the scope of correction and adjustment during completion of assessment under Rule 173I. The saving language in Section 11B(4) indicated that claims otherwise provided for under the Act or Rules were outside the refund bar, and Rule 173I was treated as an independent provision governing the Superintendent's power to complete assessment and effect debit or credit in the PLA. The time limit under Section 11B was held inapplicable because the case was not one of refund governed by that section.

Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to adjustment of the excess amount under Rule 173I, and the rejection of the claim as time barred was unsustainable.

---