https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42117 The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, a Rice Mill Plant, in a case concerning the refund of excise duty paid under mistake of law. The court upheld the right to claim a refund of tax paid under a mistake of law, emphasizing adherence to the limitation period under Article 226. The judgment highlighted the ethics of undue enrichment and rejected the denial of refunds based on lack of intention to reimburse consumers. Interest on the refund was denied due to the department's refusal being based on the limitation period, not default. The petitioner was directed to receive the refund of duty collected during specific years after deducting the amount already paid, with costs awarded. en-us Wed, 09 Dec 1987 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 09 Jun 2010 12:07:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42117 The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, a Rice Mill Plant, in a case concerning the refund of excise duty paid under mistake of law. The court upheld the right to claim a refund of tax paid under a mistake of law, emphasizing adherence to the limitation period under Article 226. The judgment highlighted the ethics of undue enrichment and rejected the denial of refunds based on lack of intention to reimburse consumers. Interest on the refund was denied due to the department's refusal being based on the limitation period, not default. The petitioner was directed to receive the refund of duty collected during specific years after deducting the amount already paid, with costs awarded. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 09 Dec 1987 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42117