Statutory refund limitation barred condonation, and a reprocessing unit could not file the manufacturer's refund claim.

A fiscal refund claim under the excise regime was held time-barred because the statute fixed a limitation period from the date the goods re-entered the factory and did not provide any express power to condone delay. The text states that inherent powers cannot be implied to extend a clear statutory deadline, particularly where the excise scheme expressly allows condonation in other contexts. It also explains that a reprocessing unit's filing could not be treated as the original manufacturer's refund claim, because permission to reprocess did not create agency for refund purposes and the proper authority remained linked to the original clearance and duty payment records.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the refund claim could be entertained beyond the limitation period on the basis of inherent powers to condone delay; (ii) Whether the refund claim filed by the reprocessing unit at Bombay could be treated as a claim on behalf of the appellant-manufacturer.

Issue (i): Whether the refund claim could be entertained beyond the limitation period on the basis of inherent powers to condone delay.

Analysis: Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act prescribed a specific period for filing refund claims, and in the case of goods returned to a factory for re-processing, the period ran from the date the goods entered the factory. The provision contained no clause empowering condonation of delay. A power to condone delay cannot be implied into a statute that fixes a time limit in clear terms, especially where the legislature has expressly provided for condonation in other situations under the excise scheme.

Conclusion: The claim was barred by limitation and the delay could not be condoned.

Issue (ii): Whether the refund claim filed by the reprocessing unit at Bombay could be treated as a claim on behalf of the appellant-manufacturer.

Analysis: Rule 173M contemplated re-processing in another factory and required the assessee to furnish the necessary information. The rule did not convert the reprocessing unit into an agent of the original manufacturer for refund purposes, nor did permission to reprocess confer authority to file the refund claim on the appellant's behalf. The refund related to duty paid when the goods were originally cleared, and the proper jurisdictional authority remained the one having the records of that clearance and duty payment.

Conclusion: The claim filed by Hindustan Lever could not be treated as a claim filed on behalf of the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The rejection of the refund claim was upheld and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a fiscal statute prescribes a limitation period for refund claims without providing for condonation, no inherent power to extend time can be implied, and a claim filed by a reprocessing unit cannot be treated as the original manufacturer's refund claim unless the statute so provides.

---