https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41509 A refund claim for excise duty paid under mistake was held to accrue when the duty was paid, so the amended Rule 11 refund period could not retrospectively extinguish that vested right absent clear statutory language. The six-month limitation under the amended rule therefore did not bar claims based on earlier payments. In mistake-based refund proceedings, limitation was held to run from discovery of the mistake, subject to reasonable diligence under section 17 of the Limitation Act, 1963. On the facts, the claimant acted promptly after discovering the mistake, and the refund claims were not rejected for delay or laches. en-us Fri, 27 Apr 1984 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 22 Jan 2014 16:30:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41509 A refund claim for excise duty paid under mistake was held to accrue when the duty was paid, so the amended Rule 11 refund period could not retrospectively extinguish that vested right absent clear statutory language. The six-month limitation under the amended rule therefore did not bar claims based on earlier payments. In mistake-based refund proceedings, limitation was held to run from discovery of the mistake, subject to reasonable diligence under section 17 of the Limitation Act, 1963. On the facts, the claimant acted promptly after discovering the mistake, and the refund claims were not rejected for delay or laches. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 27 Apr 1984 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41509