https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167186 The article discusses whether refund of excess excise duty collected without authority of law can be claimed in writ jurisdiction despite limitation and unjust enrichment. One view treated the levy as unlawful, held Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 inapplicable to such a claim, accepted the refund applications and writ petition as timely from the Supreme Court's Voltas decision, and found restitution not barred by unjust enrichment. The contrary view held that the duty burden had been passed on to distributors and consumers, declined writ relief, and treated the claim as barred by Rule 11 limitation and by the broader facts surrounding discovery of mistake. The Bench remained divided, and no clear majority determination emerges. 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 The article discusses whether refund of excess excise duty collected without authority of law can be claimed in writ jurisdiction despite limitation and unjust enrichment. One view treated the levy as unlawful, held Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 inapplicable to such a claim, accepted the refund applications and writ petition as timely from the Supreme Court's Voltas decision, and found restitution not barred by unjust enrichment. The contrary view held that the duty burden had been passed on to distributors and consumers, declined writ relief, and treated the claim as barred by Rule 11 limitation and by the broader facts surrounding discovery of mistake. The Bench remained divided, and no clear majority determination emerges. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 15 Dec 1983 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167186