https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43525 The petitioners, a Public Limited Company, succeeded in their claim for a refund of excise duty under the Central Excise Act. The Court set aside the Assistant Collector's decision citing limitation under Section 11B, emphasizing that recovery under a mistake of law or ignorance of an exemption notification is unauthorized. Despite the burden on the petitioners to prove ignorance, the Court accepted their claim due to the Department's failure to refute it. The matter was remanded for a fresh determination without limitation constraints, highlighting the importance of establishing ignorance of exemption notifications in excise duty refund claims. en-us Wed, 21 Oct 1992 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 18 Jun 2010 15:29:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43525 The petitioners, a Public Limited Company, succeeded in their claim for a refund of excise duty under the Central Excise Act. The Court set aside the Assistant Collector's decision citing limitation under Section 11B, emphasizing that recovery under a mistake of law or ignorance of an exemption notification is unauthorized. Despite the burden on the petitioners to prove ignorance, the Court accepted their claim due to the Department's failure to refute it. The matter was remanded for a fresh determination without limitation constraints, highlighting the importance of establishing ignorance of exemption notifications in excise duty refund claims. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 21 Oct 1992 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43525