https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43368 Section 11B's refund limitation scheme was upheld as a special fiscal mechanism, with the six-month period, absence of condonation, and definition of relevant date held not arbitrary under Articles 14 and 265. The distinction between payments under protest and without protest was treated as rational, and the principle of unjust enrichment supported restricting belated refunds. The bar on civil suits and refund claims was also sustained because the excise law operates as a complete code for levy, assessment, appeal, and refund, allowing exclusion of civil court jurisdiction where statutory remedies are adequate. The statutory refund restriction was therefore held valid. en-us Wed, 13 Mar 1991 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 17 Jun 2010 16:20:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43368 Section 11B's refund limitation scheme was upheld as a special fiscal mechanism, with the six-month period, absence of condonation, and definition of relevant date held not arbitrary under Articles 14 and 265. The distinction between payments under protest and without protest was treated as rational, and the principle of unjust enrichment supported restricting belated refunds. The bar on civil suits and refund claims was also sustained because the excise law operates as a complete code for levy, assessment, appeal, and refund, allowing exclusion of civil court jurisdiction where statutory remedies are adequate. The statutory refund restriction was therefore held valid. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 13 Mar 1991 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43368