https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43216 Refund of excise duty collected without authority of law cannot be defeated in writ jurisdiction by invoking Rule 11 limitation meant for departmental proceedings; the bar applies before statutory authorities, not as a defence to retain unlawful collections under Article 226. The objection based on limitation therefore failed. The doctrine of unjust enrichment also did not defeat the refund claim because it had not been properly raised below, required disputed questions of fact, and was unsupported by reliable evidence that the duty burden had been passed on to customers. The refund claim was accordingly upheld. en-us Thu, 09 Jan 1992 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 16 Jun 2010 17:51:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43216 Refund of excise duty collected without authority of law cannot be defeated in writ jurisdiction by invoking Rule 11 limitation meant for departmental proceedings; the bar applies before statutory authorities, not as a defence to retain unlawful collections under Article 226. The objection based on limitation therefore failed. The doctrine of unjust enrichment also did not defeat the refund claim because it had not been properly raised below, required disputed questions of fact, and was unsupported by reliable evidence that the duty burden had been passed on to customers. The refund claim was accordingly upheld. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 09 Jan 1992 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43216