<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1991 (8) TMI 84 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43028</link>
    <description>Excise duty collected without authority of law was treated as money paid under mistake of law, and the Department could not retain it. The High Court held that, in writ jurisdiction, the statutory limitation under section 11B and the refund rules did not bar relief where the assessee sought restitution of amounts unlawfully recovered. The refund claim was therefore maintainable in writ proceedings, and refund was held payable to the petitioner.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 02 Aug 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 15 Jun 2010 17:01:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=81557" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1991 (8) TMI 84 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43028</link>
      <description>Excise duty collected without authority of law was treated as money paid under mistake of law, and the Department could not retain it. The High Court held that, in writ jurisdiction, the statutory limitation under section 11B and the refund rules did not bar relief where the assessee sought restitution of amounts unlawfully recovered. The refund claim was therefore maintainable in writ proceedings, and refund was held payable to the petitioner.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 02 Aug 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43028</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>