<?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>1990 (11) TMI 164 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43074</link>
    <description>Goods manufactured and cleared before 21-5-1976 were treated as speciality oils exempt from excise duty on the evidence, trade notice, and departmental material, and the taxpayer succeeded on that issue. Duty paid on those exempt clearances was held to have been paid under a bona fide mistake, so the amount was recoverable as money paid under mistake under Section 72 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The refund claim and suit were also held to be in time, because the mistake-based claim was not defeated by the special excise limitation and the departmental proceedings period was treated as excludable. The plaintiff was therefore entitled to refund, with appropriate adjustment and interest.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 15 Nov 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 16 Jun 2010 10:09:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=81603" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (11) TMI 164 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43074</link>
      <description>Goods manufactured and cleared before 21-5-1976 were treated as speciality oils exempt from excise duty on the evidence, trade notice, and departmental material, and the taxpayer succeeded on that issue. Duty paid on those exempt clearances was held to have been paid under a bona fide mistake, so the amount was recoverable as money paid under mistake under Section 72 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The refund claim and suit were also held to be in time, because the mistake-based claim was not defeated by the special excise limitation and the departmental proceedings period was treated as excludable. The plaintiff was therefore entitled to refund, with appropriate adjustment and interest.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 15 Nov 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43074</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>