https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167186 Refund of excess excise duty collected without authority of law raised competing views on writ maintainability, limitation and unjust enrichment. One view treated the claim as outside Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, timely from the Supreme Court's Voltas decision, and not barred by unjust enrichment. The opposing view found that the duty burden had been passed to distributors and consumers, making writ relief inappropriate, and regarded the claim as time-barred under Rule 11 and principles governing discovery of mistake. The Bench's disagreement left no clear majority determination on maintainability or limitation. en-us Thu, 15 Dec 1983 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 10 Dec 2014 14:43:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167186 Refund of excess excise duty collected without authority of law raised competing views on writ maintainability, limitation and unjust enrichment. One view treated the claim as outside Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, timely from the Supreme Court's Voltas decision, and not barred by unjust enrichment. The opposing view found that the duty burden had been passed to distributors and consumers, making writ relief inappropriate, and regarded the claim as time-barred under Rule 11 and principles governing discovery of mistake. The Bench's disagreement left no clear majority determination on maintainability or limitation. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 15 Dec 1983 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167186