Excise refund claims must follow Section 11B; Rule 173-I does not create a separate refund right and limitation applies.

Duty paid on the basis of an approved classification list and price list could not be refunded under Rule 173-I, because that rule only governed adjustment within the approved assessment framework and did not create a separate refund entitlement. The proper remedy for excess duty was a refund claim under Section 11B, but the assessee had not filed any revised classification or price list after the duty-reducing notifications and the refund application was made beyond the prescribed six-month period. The claim was therefore not maintainable under Rule 173-I and was time-barred under Section 11B.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to refund of excess duty under Rule 173-I of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and whether the refund claim filed under Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The duty had been paid on the basis of the approved classification list and price list, and the assessee had not filed any revised classification or price list after the notifications reducing duty. Rule 173-I governed adjustment of duty on RT-12 assessment within the approved framework and did not confer a right to claim refund in the manner sought by the assessee. The proper remedy for excess duty paid in such circumstances was a refund application under Section 11B, but that claim had been filed beyond the prescribed period of six months from the dates of payment.

Conclusion: The assessee was not entitled to refund under Rule 173-I, and the refund claim under Section 11B was time-barred.

---