Refund of excise duty paid under mistake of law cannot be defeated by limitation or laches in writ jurisdiction.

Refund of excise duty paid under mistake of law was held not to be barred by limitation under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules when relief was sought in writ jurisdiction under Article 226. The Court reasoned that a departmental limitation objection could not defeat a just refund claim where the authority had accepted that the goods were not liable to duty for the relevant earlier period. The plea of laches was also rejected because the delay caused no demonstrated prejudice to the department. The objection of unjust enrichment was not accepted on the material before the Court, and the refund was therefore allowed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a refund of excise duty paid under mistake of law can be denied in writ jurisdiction on the ground of limitation under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules or on the ground of laches.

Analysis: The claim for refund was founded on payment of duty under mistake of law, and the statutory authority had accepted that the goods were not liable to duty for the relevant earlier period. In writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the departmental plea of limitation under Rule 11 could not defeat a just claim for refund. The delay in approaching the Court also did not cause prejudice to the department, and the record did not justify refusal of relief on the ground of laches. The objection of unjust enrichment was not accepted on the material placed before the Court.

Conclusion: The refund could not be denied on the grounds of limitation or laches, and the petitioners succeeded.

---