https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42848 Refund of duty wrongly paid under the Central Excise regime was held not to be barred in writ jurisdiction by the six-month limitation in Rule 11, because Article 226 relief is not controlled by that administrative time limit where duty was wrongly recovered. The objection of unjust enrichment also failed because the Department filed no affidavit or supporting material to show that the duty burden had been passed on. A plea of laches was rejected in the absence of demonstrated prejudice to revenue. The earlier refusal of refund was set aside, subject only to verification and payment of the refundable amount. en-us Thu, 23 Aug 1990 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 14 Jun 2010 16:23:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42848 Refund of duty wrongly paid under the Central Excise regime was held not to be barred in writ jurisdiction by the six-month limitation in Rule 11, because Article 226 relief is not controlled by that administrative time limit where duty was wrongly recovered. The objection of unjust enrichment also failed because the Department filed no affidavit or supporting material to show that the duty burden had been passed on. A plea of laches was rejected in the absence of demonstrated prejudice to revenue. The earlier refusal of refund was set aside, subject only to verification and payment of the refundable amount. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 23 Aug 1990 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42848