https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42164 Refund suits for excise duty paid on blended yarn were held to be within limitation because Section 17(1)(c) of the Limitation Act postponed time until discovery of the mistake of law. However, the Mills were denied refund under Section 72 of the Contract Act and restitution principles because the duty burden had been passed on to buyers, so retaining the amount was not unjust and the Mills had not suffered the real loss. Section 64A of the Sale of Goods Act supported that result. The claim for interest also failed for want of contractual, statutory, or equitable basis, and because the principal refund claim did not survive. en-us Fri, 06 Apr 1984 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 09 Jun 2010 15:26:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42164 Refund suits for excise duty paid on blended yarn were held to be within limitation because Section 17(1)(c) of the Limitation Act postponed time until discovery of the mistake of law. However, the Mills were denied refund under Section 72 of the Contract Act and restitution principles because the duty burden had been passed on to buyers, so retaining the amount was not unjust and the Mills had not suffered the real loss. Section 64A of the Sale of Goods Act supported that result. The claim for interest also failed for want of contractual, statutory, or equitable basis, and because the principal refund claim did not survive. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 06 Apr 1984 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42164