https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166040 A refund claim for countervailing duty was held to be governed by the limitation period in section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962, so a belated application was time-barred. The contention that excess duty paid under mutual mistake of fact and law could be recovered within three years under section 72 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 was rejected because the statutory refund regime in the Customs Act controlled the claim. The earlier authority cited by the importer was found inapplicable, as this was not a case where no countervailing duty was leviable at all. en-us Mon, 20 Dec 1982 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 23 Aug 2014 13:08:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166040 A refund claim for countervailing duty was held to be governed by the limitation period in section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962, so a belated application was time-barred. The contention that excess duty paid under mutual mistake of fact and law could be recovered within three years under section 72 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 was rejected because the statutory refund regime in the Customs Act controlled the claim. The earlier authority cited by the importer was found inapplicable, as this was not a case where no countervailing duty was leviable at all. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 20 Dec 1982 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166040