https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40971 A writ petition under Article 226 was held maintainable for refund of excess excise duty collected without authority of law, because the dispute did not require trial of disputed facts and the Revenue could not retain illegal exactions merely by pointing to an ordinary statutory remedy. Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules was held inapplicable on the facts, as the claim was not treated as one arising from inadvertence, error, or misconstruction; the limitation attached to that rule, including Rule 173-J, therefore did not bar refund. The revisional and restrictive appellate orders were quashed and refund was directed after verification of accounts. en-us Tue, 05 Feb 1980 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 19 May 2010 10:15:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40971 A writ petition under Article 226 was held maintainable for refund of excess excise duty collected without authority of law, because the dispute did not require trial of disputed facts and the Revenue could not retain illegal exactions merely by pointing to an ordinary statutory remedy. Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules was held inapplicable on the facts, as the claim was not treated as one arising from inadvertence, error, or misconstruction; the limitation attached to that rule, including Rule 173-J, therefore did not bar refund. The revisional and restrictive appellate orders were quashed and refund was directed after verification of accounts. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 05 Feb 1980 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40971