https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41822 A civil suit for refund of excise duty was maintainable despite statutory finality clauses, because exclusion of civil jurisdiction is not readily inferred and departmental orders based on ignored material records and mistaken facts can be treated as a nullity. The protective bar in Section 40 did not defeat a claim for refund of duty illegally collected. The refund claim was also within limitation: Article 100 of the Limitation Act did not apply to a void order, and the residuary Article 113 governed time from the final departmental refusal. On merits, refund was confined to duty on paper manufactured on machines Nos. 3 and 4 and used in lamination; paper from machines Nos. 1 and 2 was outside the concession. en-us Tue, 11 Oct 1983 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 07 Jun 2010 12:46:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41822 A civil suit for refund of excise duty was maintainable despite statutory finality clauses, because exclusion of civil jurisdiction is not readily inferred and departmental orders based on ignored material records and mistaken facts can be treated as a nullity. The protective bar in Section 40 did not defeat a claim for refund of duty illegally collected. The refund claim was also within limitation: Article 100 of the Limitation Act did not apply to a void order, and the residuary Article 113 governed time from the final departmental refusal. On merits, refund was confined to duty on paper manufactured on machines Nos. 3 and 4 and used in lamination; paper from machines Nos. 1 and 2 was outside the concession. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 11 Oct 1983 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41822