https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44673 The court upheld the Assistant Collector's order rejecting interest on the refund of excise duty, citing the absence of provision for such payments in Central Excise Law. It found the classification error to be a bona fide mistake, protected under Section 40 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The court declined to grant interest under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, emphasizing the statutory framework and the principle of remoteness of damages. Ultimately, the court dismissed the petition, affirming the denial of interest and highlighting the importance of legal principles and equitable considerations. en-us Fri, 25 Oct 1991 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 03 Jul 2010 11:00:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44673 The court upheld the Assistant Collector's order rejecting interest on the refund of excise duty, citing the absence of provision for such payments in Central Excise Law. It found the classification error to be a bona fide mistake, protected under Section 40 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The court declined to grant interest under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, emphasizing the statutory framework and the principle of remoteness of damages. Ultimately, the court dismissed the petition, affirming the denial of interest and highlighting the importance of legal principles and equitable considerations. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 25 Oct 1991 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44673