https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46758 Refund of excise duty recovered on exempt goods was not barred by Rule 11 or Rule 173-J because the levy itself was not exigible; the claim was treated as money collected under mistake and therefore not defeated by excise-rule limitation. In writ jurisdiction under Article 226, the Court accepted that money recovered without authority of law should be restored on equitable principles. The petitioner was therefore entitled to refund of the entire amount, with 6% interest, because the Department's retention was unjustified. en-us Thu, 26 Sep 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 23 Jul 2010 16:56:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46758 Refund of excise duty recovered on exempt goods was not barred by Rule 11 or Rule 173-J because the levy itself was not exigible; the claim was treated as money collected under mistake and therefore not defeated by excise-rule limitation. In writ jurisdiction under Article 226, the Court accepted that money recovered without authority of law should be restored on equitable principles. The petitioner was therefore entitled to refund of the entire amount, with 6% interest, because the Department's retention was unjustified. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 26 Sep 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46758