Refund limitation under excise law: a short RT-12 endorsement did not count as a valid protest or refund claim.

A mere short endorsement on an RT-12 return referring to excess duty payment did not amount to a valid protest or a proper refund claim filed before the competent authority, so limitation under section 11B of the Central Excises & Salt Act continued to run. Because the excess duty was paid on 20-7-1985 and the refund claim was lodged only on 28-1-1986, the claim was beyond the six-month limit and was therefore time-barred. The same approach was applied by analogy to limitation reasoning in demand matters under section 11A. The refund claim was rejected and the assessee's appeal failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim was barred by limitation under section 11B of the Central Excises & Salt Act, and whether a short endorsement on the RT-12 return could be treated as a valid protest or refund claim so as to save limitation.

Analysis: The excess duty was paid on 20-7-1985, while the refund claim was lodged only on 28-1-1986, beyond six months. A mere endorsement in the RT-12 return referring to excess payment was not treated as a proper protest or as a regular refund claim made before the competent authority. The limitation under section 11B therefore applied. The same principle applied to the reasoning adopted in demand cases under section 11A, and a short endorsement on RT-12 without a proper refund claim or protest could not stop limitation.

Conclusion: The refund claim was time-barred and the endorsement on the RT-12 return did not save limitation; the issue was decided against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the refund was held to be barred by limitation under the statutory refund provisions.

Ratio Decidendi: A mere short endorsement on an RT-12 return does not constitute a valid refund claim or protest for saving limitation under section 11B.

---