High Court allows refund of duty paid in error under Item 68, setting a precedent on refundability.

The High Court held that the petitioner's discovery of the mistake in the classification of deodorised cocoa butter in 1983, leading to the filing of a revised classification list under Item 68, warranted a refund of duty paid under a mistake of law. The Court ruled that payments made under this mistake were refundable, exempt from the limitation under Section 11B of the Act. Consequently, the Court granted the writ petition, ordering the respondents to refund the excess amount paid by the petitioner for the period from 1974 to 1983 within six months, in line with established legal precedents.

---

---

Issues Involved:
The petitioner's claim for refund of excise duty; Classification of deodorised cocoa butter under central excise; Discovery of mistake in classification; Application for refund rejected based on limitation under Section 11B of the Act.

Summary:

Issue 1: Claim for Refund of Excise Duty
The petitioner manufactured deodorised cocoa butter and claimed full exemption of excise duty under Notification No. 33/63 until informed otherwise in 1979. Subsequent notices led to payments made under protest. Upon discovering the correct classification under Item 68 in 1983, a revised list was filed and approved in 1984. Refund claims for the period from 1974 to 1983 were rejected based on limitation under Section 11B of the Act.

Issue 2: Discovery of Mistake in Classification
The petitioner discovered the mistake in the classification of deodorised cocoa butter in 1983, leading to the filing of a revised classification list under Item 68. The approval of the revised list confirmed that no duty was payable on the correct classification, prompting the petitioner to apply for a refund of the duty paid under a mistake of law.

Judgment:
The High Court held that the classification of deodorised cocoa butter under Item 12 was a mistake of law, discovered by both the petitioner and the authorities in 1983. Payments made under this mistake of law were deemed refundable, and the limitation under Section 11B of the Act did not apply to such refunds. The Court allowed the writ petition, directing the respondents to refund the excess amount paid by the petitioner for the period from 1974 to 1983 within six months. The Court emphasized that the claim for refund should be made within three years from the discovery of the mistake, as established in previous legal precedents.

---