Refund of duty collected under an unlawful levy is not defeated by ordinary limitation when the original demand lacks legal basis.

Refund of countervailing duty collected on imported lenses was not barred by limitation where the levy itself lacked authority of law. The lenses had been initially assessed as glass and glassware, but the classification was later accepted to be incorrect and duty was shifted to a different tariff item; once the original levy was shown to be unlawful, it had no legal basis. In that situation, the ordinary limitation applicable to a refund claim could not defeat restitution of duty collected under a mistake of law, and the claim for excess duty refund succeeded.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund of countervailing duty paid on imported lenses was barred by limitation when the levy itself was without authority of law.

Analysis: The lenses imported for closed circuit television cameras were initially subjected to countervailing duty under Item 23A of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 as "glass and glassware", though the classification was later accepted to be incorrect and duty was levied under Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff. Once the levy was found to be unauthorized, the demand retained no lawful basis. In such a case, the ordinary limitation applicable to a refund claim could not defeat restitution of duty collected under a mistake of law.

Conclusion: The refund claim was not barred by limitation and the petitioners were entitled to refund of the excess duty.

---