https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41936 Statutory excise refund claims were examined against a six-month limitation period and the equitable reach of writ jurisdiction. The claim for 1981-82 failed because the classification list had been approved, duty had been paid long before the refund request, and the matter had attained finality; the refund was therefore barred. For 1982-83 and 1983-84, the classification lists were still pending and the duty was treated as having been paid under mistake; despite limitation, refund was allowed in writ jurisdiction because retention of the duty was considered harsh and unjust on the facts. en-us Thu, 09 Apr 1987 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 08 Jun 2010 11:00:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41936 Statutory excise refund claims were examined against a six-month limitation period and the equitable reach of writ jurisdiction. The claim for 1981-82 failed because the classification list had been approved, duty had been paid long before the refund request, and the matter had attained finality; the refund was therefore barred. For 1982-83 and 1983-84, the classification lists were still pending and the duty was treated as having been paid under mistake; despite limitation, refund was allowed in writ jurisdiction because retention of the duty was considered harsh and unjust on the facts. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 09 Apr 1987 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41936