https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43162 The court held that the petitioner was entitled to a refund of excess Customs duty paid after the statutory limitation period had expired. It ruled that the limitation period under Section 27(1) of the Customs Act could not be used to deny a refund for payments made under a mistake of law. The court asserted its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to direct the refund, emphasizing the need for justice. The court distinguished a previous judgment and rejected the argument to exhaust alternate remedies, ordering the respondents to refund the excess duty with interest for delayed payment. en-us Wed, 13 Nov 1991 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 16 Jun 2010 14:17:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43162 The court held that the petitioner was entitled to a refund of excess Customs duty paid after the statutory limitation period had expired. It ruled that the limitation period under Section 27(1) of the Customs Act could not be used to deny a refund for payments made under a mistake of law. The court asserted its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to direct the refund, emphasizing the need for justice. The court distinguished a previous judgment and rejected the argument to exhaust alternate remedies, ordering the respondents to refund the excess duty with interest for delayed payment. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 13 Nov 1991 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43162