https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167498 The Division Bench, with differing opinions, referred the matter to another judge. Lentin J. held that the refund of excess excise duty paid under a mistake of law was warranted, rejecting the defense of unjust enrichment. The writ petition filed by I.T.C. was deemed timely within three years from the discovery of the mistake. Ultimately, Lentin J.'s view prevailed, allowing the appeal and directing the respondents to refund the excess excise duty to I.T.C., while Sawant J. dissented on grounds of limitation and non-maintainability of the writ petition. en-us Tue, 09 Apr 1985 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 22 Dec 2014 15:06:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167498 The Division Bench, with differing opinions, referred the matter to another judge. Lentin J. held that the refund of excess excise duty paid under a mistake of law was warranted, rejecting the defense of unjust enrichment. The writ petition filed by I.T.C. was deemed timely within three years from the discovery of the mistake. Ultimately, Lentin J.'s view prevailed, allowing the appeal and directing the respondents to refund the excess excise duty to I.T.C., while Sawant J. dissented on grounds of limitation and non-maintainability of the writ petition. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 09 Apr 1985 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167498