JUDGMENT H.N. Seth, J. - The petitioner, Sri Mahabir Rolling Mill, has filed this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and has prayed that a writ of certiorari be issued quashing the order dated November 7, 1967, passed by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise (Anuexure O). It has also prayed for quashing of the appellate and the revisional orders passed by the Collector, Central Excise on July 8, 1968 (Annexure O) and that passed by the Government of India on November 18, 1969 (Annexure S) to the petition. 2. The petitioner manufactures iron bars and rods out of re-rollable material such as defective billet, plate cuttings, slabs and re-rollable scraps at its factory. Previously, under the tariff item no. 26-A, central excise used to be charged on the raw material which was used for the purposes of rolling as well as on the finished products. By means of a Notification dated April 24, 196., the Government of India granted exemption from payment of duty on the finished product to the extent to which it had already been paid on the raw material used for the purposes of rolling. The petitioner rolled and produced certain finished products between the period 31st of October, 1962 and 15th April, 1963 and 16th April, 1963 to 26th of June, 1963. He paid full duty on the finished product in respect of the clearances made by him during the aforementioned two periods. In September, 1963, the petitioner moved an application before the excise authorities contending that it was entitled to adjust the duty which had already been paid on the raw material used by it in the duty that was payable in respect of the goods ultimately cleared by it. It claimed that in this manner it was entitled to the refund and adjustment of a sum of Rs. 9,826.51 for the period 31st of October, 1962 to 15th April, 1963, and Rs. 3,811.73 for the period 16th April, 1963 to 26th June, 1963 (total Rs. 13,633.51). 3. After some correspondence had been entered into between the petitioner and the authorities of the Excise Department, the Assistant Controller, Central Excise rejected the claim of the petitioner for the refund of the amount, by his order dated 7th of November 1967 as being barred by time as provided in rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules. 13,633.51). 3. After some correspondence had been entered into between the petitioner and the authorities of the Excise Department, the Assistant Controller, Central Excise rejected the claim of the petitioner for the refund of the amount, by his order dated 7th of November 1967 as being barred by time as provided in rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules. In this order the Assistant Collector observed that originally the petitioner submitted a claim for Rs. 13,633.51 which was later on revised to Rs. 9,826.51. The claim of Rs. 9,826.51 related to the period of October 1962 to April 1963. As the claim for refund was submitted in September 1963 the same was made beyond three months and was barred by time as provided in rule 11. 4. In the writ petition, the petitioner has very clearly stated that at no time its claim for refund, of Rs. 13,633.51, was revised to Rs. 9,826.51 as stated in the order. This allegation made by the petitioner has not been controverted by the respondents. We find that even in appeal filed against the order of the Assistant Collector, as also in the revision before the Government of India, the petitioner continued to agitate its claim for the refund of full amount of Rs. 13,633.51. In the circumstances, we see no reason for not accepting the averment made in the writ petition that no part of the claim was revised or given up by the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that notwithstanding the provisions of rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, if any duty had been paid by him in excess of the amount payable and if he was entitled to a refund, the Central Excise Department was bound to return that part of the duty. Rule 11 clearly provides that no duties or charges which have been paid or have been adjusted in an account maintained with the Collector under rule 9 and of which the payment wholly or any part is claimed in consequence of the same having been paid through inadvertance, error or misconstruction, it shall not be refunded unless the claim is lodged with the appropriate officer within three months from the date of such payment or adjustment as the case may be. This rule clearly prohibits the excise authorities from entertaining any claim for refund of duty paid in excess because of any inadvertance, error or misconstruction unless the claim is made within a period of three months. If, however, a claim is made within a period of three months, this very rule enjoins the excise authorities to consider the claim and to allow the refund if it is ultimately found to be due to the claimant. 6. As stated above, the claim was made by the petitioner in respect of clearances made by it during two periods, i.e., 31st of October, 1962 to 15th April, 1963 (for a sum of Rs. 9,826.51) and 16th April, 1963 to 26th June, 1963 (for Rs. 3,811.73). This claim was made in the month of September, 1963. It is clear that so far as the claim of the petitioner for the first period i.e. 31st of October, 1962 to 15th of April, 1963, was concerned it could not be entertained on an application made by the petitioner, after about six months, as provided in rule 11. So far as the claim of refund of duty in respect of the clearances made in the second period, namely 16th April, 1963 to 26th of June, 1963 is concerned, the petitioner's claim in respect of the clearances made within three months of the application made in September 1963 would be in time and the excise authorities have to consider and decide the claim of the petitioner for refund of the excess duty paid in respect of those clearances on merits. 7. In the result, we allow this writ petition in part. We quash the order of the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, dated 7th November, 1967 as also the appellate and revisional orders dated 12th July, 1968 and 14th of September, 1968 and direct the Assistant Collector to consider the claim for refund made by the petitioner in respect of the clearances made by him within a period of three months of the application for refund made in the month of September, 1963. As the petition succeeds in part, we direct the parties to bear their own costs.