https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42283 A refund claim for duty collected on manufactured goods was treated as maintainable in writ jurisdiction where the delay in approaching the Court was explained, and the departmental limitation under Rule 11 was not applied rigidly against the assessee. The plea of unjust enrichment also failed because it was not the basis of the refund rejection and there was no factual foundation showing that the duty burden had been passed on to consumers. On that footing, the refundable amount carried interest from the date the classification issue was settled, and the refund with interest was upheld. en-us Fri, 22 Apr 1988 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 10 Jun 2010 12:28:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42283 A refund claim for duty collected on manufactured goods was treated as maintainable in writ jurisdiction where the delay in approaching the Court was explained, and the departmental limitation under Rule 11 was not applied rigidly against the assessee. The plea of unjust enrichment also failed because it was not the basis of the refund rejection and there was no factual foundation showing that the duty burden had been passed on to consumers. On that footing, the refundable amount carried interest from the date the classification issue was settled, and the refund with interest was upheld. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 22 Apr 1988 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42283