https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42335 Duty collected at the normal rate despite an operative exemption notification was treated as excess collection without authority of law, so Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 did not bar refund in the circumstances. The delay in seeking refund also did not defeat relief, because the assessee learned of the exemption only later and the department's own breach of the notification was material. The note further records that refund was not denied on unjust enrichment, as the exemption functioned as a fiscal incentive and the facts did not show an improper windfall. The excess duty was therefore regarded as refundable in writ jurisdiction. en-us Thu, 28 Jul 1988 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 10 Jun 2010 15:33:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42335 Duty collected at the normal rate despite an operative exemption notification was treated as excess collection without authority of law, so Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 did not bar refund in the circumstances. The delay in seeking refund also did not defeat relief, because the assessee learned of the exemption only later and the department's own breach of the notification was material. The note further records that refund was not denied on unjust enrichment, as the exemption functioned as a fiscal incentive and the facts did not show an improper windfall. The excess duty was therefore regarded as refundable in writ jurisdiction. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 28 Jul 1988 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42335