Refund claim for excess excise duty remained valid under Rule 11 despite later revised classification list filing.

A refund claim for excess central excise duty paid after a duty-reducing notification was held maintainable under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules because it was lodged within six months of payment. The later filing of a revised classification list did not defeat an already made claim for duty that was not legally payable. The operative principle is that limitation is computed from the date of excess payment, and a subsequent procedural filing cannot override a timely refund claim grounded in non-liability to duty.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim for excess central excise duty was barred by limitation and whether it could be allowed under Rule 11 notwithstanding the subsequent filing of a revised classification list.

Analysis: The notification reducing duty had come into force from 18-10-1978, and the assessee had paid duty in excess for the period 21-10-1978 to 14-11-1978. The claim dated 20-11-1978 was treated as an independent refund claim, and it was lodged within six months of payment as required by Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules. The later filing of a revised classification list did not defeat a refund claim already made for duty not legally chargeable.

Conclusion: The refund claim was within limitation and was wrongly rejected; the appeal was allowed in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: A refund claim for excess duty paid on account of a duty-reducing notification is maintainable under Rule 11 if lodged within the prescribed limitation period, and its validity is not defeated merely because the revised classification list was filed later.

---