RT-12 return endorsement cannot replace a statutory refund claim or bypass limitation for duty refund.

An endorsement on an RT-12 return claiming excess duty payment does not constitute a valid refund application for the purpose of saving limitation under Section 11B. The statutory scheme under Sections 11A and 11B governs recovery and refund of duty, and Rule 173-I may only function as a corrective mechanism subject to those statutory limits. A refund claim must be filed in the prescribed manner within time; a return endorsement does not replace that requirement, especially where duty was not paid under protest. The note therefore confirms that limitation is not avoided by such an endorsement, and a properly lodged refund claim remains necessary.

---

---

Issues: Whether an endorsement made on the RT-12 return claiming excess payment of duty could be treated as a valid refund claim so as to save the limitation under Section 11B, and whether Rule 173-I could override the statutory time limit.

Analysis: Sections 11A and 11B provide the self-contained statutory framework for recovery of short levy and for refund of duty. Rule 173-I may operate as a mechanism for correcting apparent excess or short payment, but it remains subject to the statutory limitation prescribed by the Act. A mere endorsement on the RT-12 return cannot be equated with a proper refund application, particularly where the duty was not paid under protest. The statutory refund remedy requires a claim to be filed in the prescribed manner within time, and the return endorsement does not dispense with that requirement.

Conclusion: The endorsement on the RT-12 return did not save limitation under Section 11B, and the refund claim was time-barred. The issue is decided against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.

Ratio Decidendi: A note made on an RT-12 return is not a substitute for a statutory refund claim, and it cannot avoid the limitation prescribed for refund unless the claim is properly lodged within time.

---