https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41582 Where excise duty is collected without authority of law, a writ petition under Article 226 may be maintained for consequential refund, especially when refund follows quashing of quasi-judicial orders. The limitation period in the Central Excise Rules does not govern such a claim when the payment was outside the statutory scheme and not merely a case of error or misconstruction within the rule. A plea of unjust enrichment, if not raised before the authorities or the single Judge, cannot ordinarily be introduced for the first time on appeal, and payment under a mistaken view of law or fact does not by itself defeat restitution. A show-cause notice seeking to recover a refunded amount may be interfered with where it attempts to unsettle a final appellate order. en-us Fri, 07 Jun 1985 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 04 Jun 2010 15:43:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41582 Where excise duty is collected without authority of law, a writ petition under Article 226 may be maintained for consequential refund, especially when refund follows quashing of quasi-judicial orders. The limitation period in the Central Excise Rules does not govern such a claim when the payment was outside the statutory scheme and not merely a case of error or misconstruction within the rule. A plea of unjust enrichment, if not raised before the authorities or the single Judge, cannot ordinarily be introduced for the first time on appeal, and payment under a mistaken view of law or fact does not by itself defeat restitution. A show-cause notice seeking to recover a refunded amount may be interfered with where it attempts to unsettle a final appellate order. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 07 Jun 1985 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41582