https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42822 Refund of excise duty paid under mistake of law was held not to be barred by limitation under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules when relief was sought in writ jurisdiction under Article 226. The Court reasoned that a departmental limitation objection could not defeat a just refund claim where the authority had accepted that the goods were not liable to duty for the relevant earlier period. The plea of laches was also rejected because the delay caused no demonstrated prejudice to the department. The objection of unjust enrichment was not accepted on the material before the Court, and the refund was therefore allowed. en-us Mon, 10 Sep 1990 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 14 Jun 2010 14:28:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42822 Refund of excise duty paid under mistake of law was held not to be barred by limitation under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules when relief was sought in writ jurisdiction under Article 226. The Court reasoned that a departmental limitation objection could not defeat a just refund claim where the authority had accepted that the goods were not liable to duty for the relevant earlier period. The plea of laches was also rejected because the delay caused no demonstrated prejudice to the department. The objection of unjust enrichment was not accepted on the material before the Court, and the refund was therefore allowed. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 10 Sep 1990 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42822