https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40890 Excess excise duty collected without authority of law was treated as a payment outside the charging provision, so the limitation period in Rule 11 read with Rule 173J for refund of duty paid by inadvertence, error or misconstruction did not govern the claim. Because Article 265 permits levy and collection only by authority of law, the Court held that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 could be invoked to seek return of the unlawfully collected amount despite the departmental objection based on limitation. The impugned orders were quashed and refund of the excess excise duty was directed. en-us Fri, 24 Oct 1980 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 15 May 2010 15:49:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40890 Excess excise duty collected without authority of law was treated as a payment outside the charging provision, so the limitation period in Rule 11 read with Rule 173J for refund of duty paid by inadvertence, error or misconstruction did not govern the claim. Because Article 265 permits levy and collection only by authority of law, the Court held that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 could be invoked to seek return of the unlawfully collected amount despite the departmental objection based on limitation. The impugned orders were quashed and refund of the excess excise duty was directed. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 24 Oct 1980 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40890