https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43284 Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be used to secure refund of excise duty where the claimant has not complied with the statutory limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The court also applied restitution principles under Section 72 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 and the doctrine of unjust enrichment, requiring proof that the tax burden was not passed on to others. As the claimant failed to establish retention of the amount at its expense or satisfaction of the conditions for exemption, no enforceable right to refund or restitution arose. en-us Wed, 04 Dec 1991 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 17 Jun 2010 11:19:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43284 Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be used to secure refund of excise duty where the claimant has not complied with the statutory limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The court also applied restitution principles under Section 72 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 and the doctrine of unjust enrichment, requiring proof that the tax burden was not passed on to others. As the claimant failed to establish retention of the amount at its expense or satisfaction of the conditions for exemption, no enforceable right to refund or restitution arose. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 04 Dec 1991 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43284