Consequential refund claims after final appellate relief are not barred by Section 11B limitation where duty was treated as paid under protest.

Consequential refunds arising from a final appellate order were treated as outside the six-month limitation in Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Applying the principle in Mafatlal Industries and its own prior ruling, the Tribunal held that duty-paid cases finally concluded by orders, decrees or judgments are to be treated as paid under protest for refund purposes, so the procedural requirements and limitation in Section 11B(2) and Section 11B(3) do not govern such claims. The refund was therefore maintainable and not time-barred.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim arising from a final appellate order was barred by limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, or whether it was a consequential refund not subject to the six-month period.

Analysis: The refund was sought after duty had been paid and after the assessee succeeded in earlier proceedings. The dispute turned on whether the limitation in Section 11B applied to such a claim. The Tribunal followed the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Mafatlal Industries and the Tribunal's own earlier decision, holding that duty-paid cases which have finally ended in orders, decrees, or judgments are to be treated as having been paid under protest, so that the procedural requirements and limitation under Section 11B(2) and Section 11B(3) do not govern such consequential refunds. The plea that the refund should be rejected as time-barred was therefore not accepted.

Conclusion: The refund claim was held to be maintainable and not barred by limitation, and the Revenue's appeal was rejected.

---