https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42665 The High Court held that the petitioner was entitled to a refund of excise duty paid on scantlings between 1-3-1975 to 17-11-1980, despite the payment not being made under protest. The court ruled that the limitation under Section 11-B of the Central Excise Act did not apply to claims made under a mistake of law. Emphasizing that the refund claim was filed promptly after realizing the mistake, the court directed the Assistant Collector to refund the amount within two months, utilizing the court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. en-us Mon, 01 Jan 1990 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 12 Jun 2010 15:31:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42665 The High Court held that the petitioner was entitled to a refund of excise duty paid on scantlings between 1-3-1975 to 17-11-1980, despite the payment not being made under protest. The court ruled that the limitation under Section 11-B of the Central Excise Act did not apply to claims made under a mistake of law. Emphasizing that the refund claim was filed promptly after realizing the mistake, the court directed the Assistant Collector to refund the amount within two months, utilizing the court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 01 Jan 1990 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42665