https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43384 A claim for rebate that had not been finally decided on merits could not be treated as barred merely because an earlier appellate rejection rested on limitation. The Assistant Collector was required to apply his mind to the representation and determine the rebate claim on merits; refusal to do so amounted to non-exercise of jurisdiction. In writ jurisdiction, such a refusal was unsustainable, and the appropriate course was a mandamus directing fresh consideration of the representation and decision on the substantive claim. en-us Thu, 03 Nov 1988 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 17 Jun 2010 17:12:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43384 A claim for rebate that had not been finally decided on merits could not be treated as barred merely because an earlier appellate rejection rested on limitation. The Assistant Collector was required to apply his mind to the representation and determine the rebate claim on merits; refusal to do so amounted to non-exercise of jurisdiction. In writ jurisdiction, such a refusal was unsustainable, and the appropriate course was a mandamus directing fresh consideration of the representation and decision on the substantive claim. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 03 Nov 1988 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43384