https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=370865 The court held that duty paid under a mistake of law must adhere to the limitation period under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. Refund claims categorized as "mistake of law" fall under this provision. The court rejected the preliminary objection on appeal withdrawal, emphasizing its duty to establish correct legal principles. Refund claims were classified as per Mafatlal Industries Limited, clarifying that they must follow statutory provisions under Section 11B. The court concluded that refund claims beyond the one-year limitation period were not maintainable, dismissing the writ petitions and overruling the judgment in WP(C) No. 18126/2015. en-us Fri, 09 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 30 Nov 2019 18:08:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=370865 The court held that duty paid under a mistake of law must adhere to the limitation period under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. Refund claims categorized as "mistake of law" fall under this provision. The court rejected the preliminary objection on appeal withdrawal, emphasizing its duty to establish correct legal principles. Refund claims were classified as per Mafatlal Industries Limited, clarifying that they must follow statutory provisions under Section 11B. The court concluded that refund claims beyond the one-year limitation period were not maintainable, dismissing the writ petitions and overruling the judgment in WP(C) No. 18126/2015. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 09 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=370865