Refund of excess excise duty: writ maintainability, limitation and unjust enrichment remained split in the Bombay High Court.

The article discusses whether refund of excess excise duty collected without authority of law can be claimed in writ jurisdiction despite limitation and unjust enrichment. One view treated the levy as unlawful, held Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 inapplicable to such a claim, accepted the refund applications and writ petition as timely from the Supreme Court's Voltas decision, and found restitution not barred by unjust enrichment. The contrary view held that the duty burden had been passed on to distributors and consumers, declined writ relief, and treated the claim as barred by Rule 11 limitation and by the broader facts surrounding discovery of mistake. The Bench remained divided, and no clear majority determination emerges.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund of excess excise duty collected without authority of law was maintainable under writ jurisdiction notwithstanding limitation and the plea of unjust enrichment.

Analysis: One opinion held that the excess duty had been collected without authority of law, that Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 did not govern such a claim, that the refund applications and writ petition were within time computed from the Supreme Court decision in Voltas, and that unjust enrichment did not bar restitution. The other opinion held that the petitioners had already passed on the burden to distributors and consumers, that the writ jurisdiction should not be exercised in their favour, and that the claim was barred by limitation under Rule 11 and also on the broader facts of discovery of mistake.

Conclusion: The Bench differed on both maintainability and limitation, and no clear majority determination emerges from the judgment as a whole.

---