1986 (5) TMI 126

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....resaid Tribunal order is correct in law? (ii) Whether the Tribunal is correct in allowing the refund claim filed by the company by holding that principle of unjust enrichment cannot be imported in dealing with a regular claim for refund of duty under Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 when such duty has already been collected by the company from its customers and not been paid back to the customer?" 2.  Shri Chandramouli, the learned S.D.R. made submissions on the questions set out in the reference application. The first question is purely a question of fact and not a question of law since the correctness of order of the Tribunal cannot be assailed much less reviewed in a reference application. So far as the ap....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the case of M/s. D. Cawasji and Company, etc., etc. v. State of Mysore and another, reported in AIR 1975 SC 813 while discussing the question relating to limitation for recovery of moneys paid under a mistake of law envisaged by Sec. 72 of the Contract Act held that when a suit will lie to the recovery of moneys paid under a mistake of law, a writ petition for refund of tax within the period of limitation prescribed viz. within three years of knowledge of the mistake would also lie. Though the Hon'ble Supreme Court was conscious of the fact that such a right recognised in a person to recover the amount paid as tax even after several years of the date of payment on the basis of mistake of law might both be inexpedient and unjust so far as th....