Refund limitation under Section 11B turns on the duty payment claimed as refundable, with provisional assessment requiring factual verification.

Refund limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 was held to run from the duty payment claimed as refundable; on the stated facts, the earlier July 1990 payment was treated as the relevant date, so the January 1991 refund claim was time-barred. The text also notes that an alternative plea, that the July 1990 RT-12 return related to a provisional assessment, could affect the relevant date for limitation if established. That factual question was not finally resolved on the existing record and required fresh verification by the Assistant Collector, so the matter was remanded only for that limited examination.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the refund claim was barred by limitation by treating the first duty payment in July 1990 as the relevant date, and whether the later duty payment in September 1990 was the refundable excess payment. (ii) Whether the plea that the July 1990 RT-12 return related to a provisional assessment required examination for computing limitation.

Issue (i): Whether the refund claim was barred by limitation by treating the first duty payment in July 1990 as the relevant date, and whether the later duty payment in September 1990 was the refundable excess payment.

Analysis: Duty had initially been paid when the semi-finished goods were not received back within the permitted time under Rule 57F(2) of the Central Excise Rules. When the goods were subsequently received back and finally cleared after processing, the later duty payment was treated as the correct payment on final clearance. The earlier payment therefore became the payment that had to be refunded, and the refund claim had to be computed with reference to that first payment. On that basis, the claim filed in January 1991 was beyond time. The authorities relied on the statutory time limit under Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, and the distinction was drawn between lawful payment and excess payment in the present facts.

Conclusion: The refund claim was time-barred if the claim is taken with reference to the first payment made in July 1990.

Issue (ii): Whether the plea that the July 1990 RT-12 return related to a provisional assessment required examination for computing limitation.

Analysis: The record showed an alternative contention that the July 1990 RT-12 return may have been provisionally assessed, in which event limitation would run only from finalisation of the provisional assessment. That factual question was not finally decided on the existing record and required verification by the Assistant Collector with reference to the meaning of relevant date under Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.

Conclusion: The provisional assessment plea was accepted for fresh examination and the matter was remanded on that limited question.

Final Conclusion: The order sustains the limitation ruling on the main refund claim but sends the matter back for de novo consideration of the limited question whether the July 1990 assessment was provisional.

Ratio Decidendi: In a refund dispute governed by Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, limitation is computed with reference to the duty payment that is claimed as refundable, and where a provisional assessment plea is raised, the relevant date must be determined by first ascertaining whether such assessment was in fact provisional.

---