https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42203 A refund claim for excise duty, though rejected by the department as time-barred under section 11B, was considered maintainable in writ jurisdiction under Article 226. The Court followed the applicable precedent and rejected the contention that relief must fail merely because the duty burden had been passed on to customers. On the facts as decided, the statutory limitation bar did not prevent the Court from directing repayment, and the refund claim was allowed. en-us Thu, 27 Aug 1987 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 09 Jun 2010 17:25:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42203 A refund claim for excise duty, though rejected by the department as time-barred under section 11B, was considered maintainable in writ jurisdiction under Article 226. The Court followed the applicable precedent and rejected the contention that relief must fail merely because the duty burden had been passed on to customers. On the facts as decided, the statutory limitation bar did not prevent the Court from directing repayment, and the refund claim was allowed. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 27 Aug 1987 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42203