https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41522 A refund claim for excise duty collected on flush doors was held barred by the special six-month limitation under section 11-B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The statute was treated as a complete refund code excluding the operation of other laws, including the Contract Act and the Limitation Act, and displacing contrary refund claims. Although Article 226 remains available in principle, writ relief is discretionary and cannot be used to order refund in a manner that defeats the amended statutory scheme. A mandamus directing refund beyond the prescribed period would nullify legislative intent and compel disobedience of the law, so the refund claim was refused. en-us Tue, 18 Sep 1984 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 04 Jun 2010 10:49:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41522 A refund claim for excise duty collected on flush doors was held barred by the special six-month limitation under section 11-B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The statute was treated as a complete refund code excluding the operation of other laws, including the Contract Act and the Limitation Act, and displacing contrary refund claims. Although Article 226 remains available in principle, writ relief is discretionary and cannot be used to order refund in a manner that defeats the amended statutory scheme. A mandamus directing refund beyond the prescribed period would nullify legislative intent and compel disobedience of the law, so the refund claim was refused. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 18 Sep 1984 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41522