Wrong excise classification and laches shaped refund rights, with restitution allowed for timely claims but denied on inconsistent conduct.

Refund of excess excise duty collected under a wrong tariff classification was held available in writ jurisdiction where the payment was not purely voluntary and the claim for restitution arose from an inapplicable assessment. The Court treated excess payments made within the relevant three-year period before the writ petition as not barred by delay or laches and allowed refund for non-wired-glass goods within that period. For wired glass, however, refund was refused because the claimants had earlier taken a contrary stand and obtained relief on that footing, making equitable relief unavailable for the earlier period.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellants were entitled to refund of excess excise duty paid on goods other than wired glass for the period prior to and after the filing of the first writ petition; (ii) Whether the appellants were entitled to refund of excess duty paid on wired glass for the period prior to the filing of the first writ petition.

Issue (i): Whether the appellants were entitled to refund of excess excise duty paid on goods other than wired glass for the period prior to and after the filing of the first writ petition.

Analysis: The duty had been collected under an inapplicable tariff item, and the classification in favour of the appellants had already become final. A claim for restitution of money paid under mistake was therefore available in principle. For writ relief, delay is judged on the facts, and unexplained delay beyond the ordinary limitation period may justify refusal on laches; however, the rule is not inflexible. The appellants had approached the High Court on 28 September 1976, and the Court treated excess payments made within three years prior to that date as not barred. The payments were made under assessment and could not be treated as purely voluntary so as to defeat restitution.

Conclusion: The appellants were entitled to refund of excess duty paid on the goods other than wired glass for the period from 28 September 1973 to 20 February 1976, and the assessments for that period were liable to be quashed and redetermined.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellants were entitled to refund of excess duty paid on wired glass for the period prior to the filing of the first writ petition.

Analysis: Wired glass stood on a different footing because the appellants had earlier taken a contrary stand and had obtained an order treating wired glass as falling under the very tariff item later challenged. That earlier position operated as a circumstance disentitling them to seek refund in writ proceedings for the earlier period. The Court therefore refused to grant equitable relief for that item.

Conclusion: The claim for refund of excess duty paid on wired glass for the earlier period was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only in part: refund was granted for excess duty paid on the non-wired-glass items within the eligible period, while the claim relating to wired glass for the earlier period was refused.

Ratio Decidendi: Where excise duty has been collected under a wrong classification, refund may be granted in writ jurisdiction for payments made within the period not barred by delay or laches, but equitable relief can be denied where the claimant is inconsistent with an earlier stand on the same item.

---