https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43575 Customs duty retained despite imported goods being unavailable for clearance was treated as collection without authority of law. Although the departmental refund claim was rejected as time-barred under the Customs Act, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 could be exercised to direct refund where non-delivery of the goods made retention of duty unjustified. Statutory limitation governing departmental refund claims did not bar constitutional relief in those circumstances. Refund of the duty was directed, while interest was declined. en-us Wed, 23 Jun 1993 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 18 Jun 2010 18:19:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43575 Customs duty retained despite imported goods being unavailable for clearance was treated as collection without authority of law. Although the departmental refund claim was rejected as time-barred under the Customs Act, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 could be exercised to direct refund where non-delivery of the goods made retention of duty unjustified. Statutory limitation governing departmental refund claims did not bar constitutional relief in those circumstances. Refund of the duty was directed, while interest was declined. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 23 Jun 1993 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43575