https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272441 Money paid under a mistake of law was held recoverable where the plaintiff proved it learned of the excise exemption only in late 1957 or early 1958; the contemporaneous forms relied on by the defence did not establish earlier knowledge because they pre-dated the exemption notification. The refund suit was held not barred by Section 40(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, because that bar applied only to proceedings concerning acts or orders done under the Act, while this claim arose from payment under mistake and was outside the statutory refund machinery. Article 96 of the Limitation Act, 1908 applied, so limitation ran from discovery of the mistake, and the claim was within time. en-us Fri, 31 Mar 1967 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 03 May 2018 14:40:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272441 Money paid under a mistake of law was held recoverable where the plaintiff proved it learned of the excise exemption only in late 1957 or early 1958; the contemporaneous forms relied on by the defence did not establish earlier knowledge because they pre-dated the exemption notification. The refund suit was held not barred by Section 40(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, because that bar applied only to proceedings concerning acts or orders done under the Act, while this claim arose from payment under mistake and was outside the statutory refund machinery. Article 96 of the Limitation Act, 1908 applied, so limitation ran from discovery of the mistake, and the claim was within time. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 31 Mar 1967 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272441