Erroneous refund recovery must follow statutory notice and limitation, or the demand is time-barred.

Erroneous refund recovery after review proceedings under Section 35E of the Central Excise Act must be pursued through a notice under Section 11A within the prescribed limitation period. The Tribunal followed Supreme Court authority holding that a review finding a refund sanction erroneous does not by itself authorise recovery outside the statutory notice mechanism. Where no Section 11A notice is issued within time, the recovery action is barred by limitation and cannot be sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether recovery of an erroneous refund pursuant to review proceedings under Section 35E of the Central Excise Act required a notice under Section 11A within the prescribed time, and whether the recovery was barred by limitation in the absence of such notice.

Analysis: The Tribunal applied the Supreme Court's ruling that, even where refund sanction is held erroneous in review proceedings, recovery can be pursued only through a notice under Section 11A within the period prescribed by that provision. The earlier Tribunal decisions following the Supreme Court's view were treated as governing the identical controversy raised in these appeals.

Conclusion: The requirement of a notice under Section 11A was affirmed, and the recovery was held to be time-barred if no such notice was issued within limitation.

Ratio Decidendi: Erroneous refund recovery, including after review proceedings under Section 35E of the Central Excise Act, must be initiated by a notice under Section 11A within the statutory limitation period; otherwise, the recovery is barred by time.

---