https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40712 A refund claim for excise duty paid under protest and under compulsion was not barred by Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, because that provision applied to voluntary payments made under mistake or similar circumstances. The Court also held that, even if limitation principles were considered, Article 226 permitted equitable restitution where the facts did not show laches sufficient to refuse relief. As the payment was not voluntary and the claim was pursued after the legal position became clear, the assessee was entitled to refund. en-us Mon, 05 Mar 1979 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 06 May 2017 17:15:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40712 A refund claim for excise duty paid under protest and under compulsion was not barred by Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, because that provision applied to voluntary payments made under mistake or similar circumstances. The Court also held that, even if limitation principles were considered, Article 226 permitted equitable restitution where the facts did not show laches sufficient to refuse relief. As the payment was not voluntary and the claim was pursued after the legal position became clear, the assessee was entitled to refund. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 05 Mar 1979 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40712