https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40454 Excess excise duty collected without authority of law was held refundable in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 as consequential relief. The Court applied the principle that money retained by the Government despite being realised at a rate higher than the lawful levy cannot be kept on the basis of a refund objection. Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, which prescribed a shorter refund period, did not defeat relief because the claim remained within the civil suit limitation for money paid under mistake. The writ court could therefore direct refund of the excess amount collected beyond the lawful rate. en-us Thu, 11 Sep 1969 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 08 May 2010 13:01:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40454 Excess excise duty collected without authority of law was held refundable in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 as consequential relief. The Court applied the principle that money retained by the Government despite being realised at a rate higher than the lawful levy cannot be kept on the basis of a refund objection. Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, which prescribed a shorter refund period, did not defeat relief because the claim remained within the civil suit limitation for money paid under mistake. The writ court could therefore direct refund of the excess amount collected beyond the lawful rate. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 11 Sep 1969 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40454