https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42259 Excise duty paid after an appealable classification order could not be recovered in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 where the assessee did not pursue the appellate remedy and failed to show that the levy was without authority of law or paid under a common mistake of law. The court also noted that the assessee had itself disputed the tariff classification, which undermined any claim of shared mistake. Separately, a refund claim filed beyond the limitation period under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules was held to be time-barred and could not be entertained merely because a later departmental view on classification was favourable. The writ challenge to the refusal of refund therefore failed. en-us Fri, 22 Apr 1988 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 10 Jun 2010 11:25:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42259 Excise duty paid after an appealable classification order could not be recovered in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 where the assessee did not pursue the appellate remedy and failed to show that the levy was without authority of law or paid under a common mistake of law. The court also noted that the assessee had itself disputed the tariff classification, which undermined any claim of shared mistake. Separately, a refund claim filed beyond the limitation period under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules was held to be time-barred and could not be entertained merely because a later departmental view on classification was favourable. The writ challenge to the refusal of refund therefore failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 22 Apr 1988 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42259