Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        Court orders refund of illegal duty, rejects unjust enrichment claim.

        DILICHAND SHREELAL Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND OTHERS

        DILICHAND SHREELAL Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND OTHERS - 1986 (26) E.L.T. 298 (Cal.) Issues Involved:
        1. Exemption from Excise Duty under Tariff Item No. 68.
        2. Legality of Excise Duty Collection.
        3. Limitation for Refund Claims.
        4. Jurisdiction of the Court to Order Refund.
        5. Unjust Enrichment.

        Summary:

        1. Exemption from Excise Duty under Tariff Item No. 68:
        The petitioner, a partnership firm, argued that acid oil and spent earth, by-products of their manufacturing process, were exempt from duty u/s Notification No. 115/75-CE dated 30th April, 1975, as amended by Notification No. 122/75-CE dated 5th May, 1975. The Central Excise authorities initially directed the petitioner to obtain a licence and pay duty on these products, which the petitioner complied with from 12th August 1977. Later, it was confirmed by the authorities that the products were indeed exempt from duty.

        2. Legality of Excise Duty Collection:
        The court held that the direction by the Superintendent, Central Excise, to pay duty was illegal and contrary to the exemption notifications. The collection of duty was in violation of Article 265 of the Constitution, which mandates that no tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law. The court concluded that the respondents acted illegally and without jurisdiction in collecting the duty.

        3. Limitation for Refund Claims:
        The petitioner claimed a refund of Rs. 2,70,000/- paid from 12th August 1977 to 14th May 1982, arguing that the payment was made under a mistake of law. The Assistant Collector rejected the claim as barred by limitation u/s 11B of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944. The court, however, held that the limitation period should start from the date the petitioner received definite information about the exemption, which was 18th May 1982. Therefore, the claim for refund filed on 23rd October 1982 was within the limitation period.

        4. Jurisdiction of the Court to Order Refund:
        The court asserted its jurisdiction to order a refund of the duty illegally collected, citing several precedents where courts have directed refunds of taxes collected without authority of law. The court emphasized that the statutory provisions of limitation do not apply when the collection is wholly illegal.

        5. Unjust Enrichment:
        The respondents contended that the petitioner had passed on the duty to customers, leading to unjust enrichment if refunded. The court rejected this argument, relying on precedents that held the theory of unjust enrichment does not apply to refunds of taxes collected without authority of law. The court directed the respondents to refund the amounts collected with interest at 12% per annum from the date of collection till the date of payment.

        Conclusion:
        The court directed the respondents to refund Rs. 2,18,140.71 and Rs. 51,859.29 with interest, within three weeks from the service of the judgment. The application for stay was refused.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found