https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218134 The court held that the refund claim for excise duty paid twice by a manufacturing company was valid despite being rejected as time-barred under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. The court found that the second payment was a clerical error and not a deposit of duty, exempting it from the limitation period. Emphasizing the principle of unjust enrichment, the court ordered the respondents to refund the amount with interest, stating that in cases of clear clerical errors, equity overrides statutory limitations on refund claims. en-us Wed, 29 Aug 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 29 Aug 2017 12:47:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218134 The court held that the refund claim for excise duty paid twice by a manufacturing company was valid despite being rejected as time-barred under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. The court found that the second payment was a clerical error and not a deposit of duty, exempting it from the limitation period. Emphasizing the principle of unjust enrichment, the court ordered the respondents to refund the amount with interest, stating that in cases of clear clerical errors, equity overrides statutory limitations on refund claims. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 29 Aug 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218134