https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45512 A notification under Rule 29 of the Andaman Excise Rules, 1934 was treated as ineffective to the extent it levied excise duty on liquor brought from the mainland. A later amendment could not defeat prior judicial determinations by declaring those decisions invalid or non-binding, and the differential treatment between persons already refunded and those not refunded was held arbitrary and discriminatory. Retention of the collected duty was also treated as unjust enrichment by the State. On that basis, refund of the excise duty for the relevant period, with interest at 6% per annum until final payment, was held due. en-us Thu, 08 Jun 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 12 Jul 2010 11:55:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45512 A notification under Rule 29 of the Andaman Excise Rules, 1934 was treated as ineffective to the extent it levied excise duty on liquor brought from the mainland. A later amendment could not defeat prior judicial determinations by declaring those decisions invalid or non-binding, and the differential treatment between persons already refunded and those not refunded was held arbitrary and discriminatory. Retention of the collected duty was also treated as unjust enrichment by the State. On that basis, refund of the excise duty for the relevant period, with interest at 6% per annum until final payment, was held due. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 08 Jun 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45512