Excise refund limitation under Section 11B cannot be bypassed through warehousing rules unless the transaction truly falls within that regime.

Refund of excise duty had to be claimed within the six-month period under Section 11B, and a claim filed after that period was barred and not maintainable. Rule 156B(2) could not displace the limitation because the goods were not genuinely covered by the warehousing regime, the payment was not a provisional one, and the correspondence did not amount to a valid protest. The refund was therefore governed by Section 11B, and the appellate refund order was set aside with restoration of the original rejection.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the respondent's refund claim was barred by limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. (ii) Whether Rule 156B(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, read with the warehousing provisions and Chapter X procedure, could exclude the bar of limitation and sustain the refund.

Issue (i): Whether the respondent's refund claim was barred by limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.

Analysis: The duty in question had been paid on 3-2-1988, while the refund application was filed only on 3-10-1988. The claim was therefore made after the statutory period of six months. Since the amount had been paid as duty and the refund was sought under the Act, the statutory authorities could not grant relief beyond the period prescribed by Section 11B.

Conclusion: The refund claim was barred by limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, and was not maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether Rule 156B(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, read with the warehousing provisions and Chapter X procedure, could exclude the bar of limitation and sustain the refund.

Analysis: The goods had been cleared at a concessional rate under Notification No. 473/86 dated 30-12-1986 following Chapter X procedure, but they were not warehoused goods and were not covered by the warehousing chapter. The refund was not a provisional payment case, and the letters sent by the respondent could not amount to a legal protest for the disputed payment. Rule 156B(2) was therefore inapplicable, and the refund claim had to be governed by Section 11B.

Conclusion: Rule 156B(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, did not apply, and the refund could not be sustained on that basis.

Final Conclusion: The appellate order granting refund was set aside, and the original order rejecting the refund was restored.

Ratio Decidendi: A refund of duty paid under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 must be claimed within the statutory period under Section 11B, and warehousing provisions cannot be invoked to bypass that limitation unless the goods and the transaction are genuinely covered by the warehousing regime.

---