https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43412 The amended refund provisions under the Central Excises and Customs Laws (Amendment) Act, 1991 were treated as governing claims for excess central excise duty, so writ jurisdiction was not used to directly grant refund on the merits. The court declined to examine the substantive objections, including limitation and unjust enrichment, and held that the competent authority should assess the claims under the amended statutory framework. The rejection orders were therefore quashed, and the claimants were left at liberty to pursue refund before the competent authority, which was directed to reconsider the claims afresh in accordance with law, including limitation. en-us Mon, 25 Nov 1991 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 17 Jun 2010 18:52:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43412 The amended refund provisions under the Central Excises and Customs Laws (Amendment) Act, 1991 were treated as governing claims for excess central excise duty, so writ jurisdiction was not used to directly grant refund on the merits. The court declined to examine the substantive objections, including limitation and unjust enrichment, and held that the competent authority should assess the claims under the amended statutory framework. The rejection orders were therefore quashed, and the claimants were left at liberty to pursue refund before the competent authority, which was directed to reconsider the claims afresh in accordance with law, including limitation. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 25 Nov 1991 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43412