https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165668 Article 226 jurisdiction was attracted because a part of the cause of action arose in Rajasthan when the assessment, appellate and revisional orders were communicated to the petitioner there. The levy of countervailing duty was treated as unlawful because the imported goods did not attract excise duty under the relevant tariff entry during the material period, so no duty was leviable under Section 2A of the Indian Tariff Act, 1936. The refund claim was not defeated by Section 27(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, since that provision applies to valid assessments and could not justify retention of money collected without authority of law. Delay and laches also did not bar relief. en-us Wed, 06 Sep 1978 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 06 Aug 2014 11:24:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165668 Article 226 jurisdiction was attracted because a part of the cause of action arose in Rajasthan when the assessment, appellate and revisional orders were communicated to the petitioner there. The levy of countervailing duty was treated as unlawful because the imported goods did not attract excise duty under the relevant tariff entry during the material period, so no duty was leviable under Section 2A of the Indian Tariff Act, 1936. The refund claim was not defeated by Section 27(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, since that provision applies to valid assessments and could not justify retention of money collected without authority of law. Delay and laches also did not bar relief. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 06 Sep 1978 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165668