https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43041 An exemption notification under Rule 8(1) reduced excise duty on organic surface active agents from 20% to 15%, and duty collected above the exempted rate after the notification was treated as collected without authority of law. The assessee's refund claim was based on payment under mistake of law, as the notification had already come into force when the excess duty was paid. In writ proceedings under Article 226, the limitation in Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 does not bar relief where the levy itself was unauthorised. The rejection of refund was therefore quashed, and entitlement to refund was recognised. en-us Thu, 10 Oct 1991 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 15 Jun 2010 17:36:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43041 An exemption notification under Rule 8(1) reduced excise duty on organic surface active agents from 20% to 15%, and duty collected above the exempted rate after the notification was treated as collected without authority of law. The assessee's refund claim was based on payment under mistake of law, as the notification had already come into force when the excess duty was paid. In writ proceedings under Article 226, the limitation in Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 does not bar relief where the levy itself was unauthorised. The rejection of refund was therefore quashed, and entitlement to refund was recognised. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 10 Oct 1991 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43041