https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=447532 CESTAT Mumbai held that refund claim for amount paid during investigation but not appropriated by department cannot be rejected on limitation grounds under Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944. The amount paid was not tax under Finance Act, 1994 but payment under mistake of law. Since retention by department lacks legal authority, limitation provisions don't apply. Constitutional Article 265 mandates tax collection only by legal authority. Following precedents including Mafatlal Industries v. Union of India, statutory limitation periods don't apply to amounts paid under mistake of law. Appeal allowed. en-us Fri, 22 Dec 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 29 Dec 2023 07:57:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=447532 CESTAT Mumbai held that refund claim for amount paid during investigation but not appropriated by department cannot be rejected on limitation grounds under Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944. The amount paid was not tax under Finance Act, 1994 but payment under mistake of law. Since retention by department lacks legal authority, limitation provisions don't apply. Constitutional Article 265 mandates tax collection only by legal authority. Following precedents including Mafatlal Industries v. Union of India, statutory limitation periods don't apply to amounts paid under mistake of law. Appeal allowed. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 22 Dec 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=447532