Refund limitation in excise law: timely filing with the proper officer and proof of protest can preserve refund entitlement.

A refund claim is treated as filed within limitation when it is lodged in time with the proper subordinate excise officer within the same jurisdictional hierarchy, even if forwarded later to the deciding authority. Payment under protest, supported by documentary evidence such as endorsed gate passes and accepted by the Department, prevents the refund claim from being defeated by limitation. Where the applicable limitation period is six months under the Central Excise Rules, a claim filed beyond that period is barred except to the limited extent of duty paid within the surviving period. Partial refund relief was therefore available, with only the time-barred portion rejected.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a refund claim filed within limitation before the jurisdictional Superintendent, but forwarded to the Assistant Collector after the prescribed period, is hit by limitation under section 11B; (ii) whether the refund claim for the later period was saved from limitation on the basis that duty had been paid under protest; (iii) whether the refund claim for the earlier period was barred by limitation under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Issue (i): Whether a refund claim filed within limitation before the jurisdictional Superintendent, but forwarded to the Assistant Collector after the prescribed period, is hit by limitation under section 11B.

Analysis: The claim was lodged in time with the Superintendent who functioned under the same jurisdictional hierarchy as the Assistant Collector. The Tribunal applied the settled view that presentation to the proper subordinate officer within time satisfies the limitation requirement, even if the papers reach the deciding authority later. The earlier decisions relied upon had treated such presentation as sufficient compliance with the statutory time limit for refund.

Conclusion: The claim was not time barred and was admissible in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the refund claim for the later period was saved from limitation on the basis that duty had been paid under protest.

Analysis: Documentary evidence in the form of gate passes bearing endorsement of payment under protest was produced, and the Department accepted the factual position. On that basis, the claim was treated as not barred by limitation, and there was no separate dispute on eligibility for refund.

Conclusion: The claim was within time and refundable in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the refund claim for the earlier period was barred by limitation under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Analysis: The relevant rule in force prescribed six months from the date of payment of duty. On the material available, the claim filed on 28-12-1978 was beyond six months for duty paid up to 28-6-1978. The plea based on alleged payment under protest and later assessment required factual verification that could not be undertaken at that stage, so the claim was decided on the existing record. Only the duty relatable to 29 and 30 June 1978 survived the limitation bar.

Conclusion: The claim was time barred except to the limited extent of 29 and 30 June 1978, and was rejected substantially against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The decision granted refund for the claims held to be within limitation and rejected only the portion found to be time barred, resulting in partial relief to the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: A refund claim is treated as filed within limitation when it is presented in time to the proper subordinate excise within the same jurisdictional hierarchy, and a claim supported by proof of payment under protest is not defeated by limitation.

---