https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41416 The High Court allowed the petition under Article 226, quashing the Customs authorities' rejection of the excise duty drawback application. The rejection order was deemed invalid due to a fundamental error by the Assistant Collector, who inaccurately referred to medicine instead of tires. Despite delays in filing appeals and petitions, the Court emphasized that no prejudice was caused to the respondents and granted a refund of Rs. 45,197.70 to the petitioner within 8 weeks. The Court set aside previous decisions based on the erroneous rejection order, stressing the need to rectify the unjust decision. en-us Mon, 26 Mar 1979 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 03 Jun 2010 10:24:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41416 The High Court allowed the petition under Article 226, quashing the Customs authorities' rejection of the excise duty drawback application. The rejection order was deemed invalid due to a fundamental error by the Assistant Collector, who inaccurately referred to medicine instead of tires. Despite delays in filing appeals and petitions, the Court emphasized that no prejudice was caused to the respondents and granted a refund of Rs. 45,197.70 to the petitioner within 8 weeks. The Court set aside previous decisions based on the erroneous rejection order, stressing the need to rectify the unjust decision. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 26 Mar 1979 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41416