1979 (5) TMI 145

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nts on 28-2-1979 and they were represented by Shri C.S. Lodha, Legal Manager of the appellant firm. 2. Shri Lodha submitted that the appellants filed refund claims in respect of certain amounts of money paid by them as duty for different periods commencing from 1-1-1974 to 31-3-1976. The mistake of having paid this duty wrongly was discovered by them only after the Supreme Court amplified ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ranted. The Assistant Collector has obviously rejected the claims as time barred under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The appellants submitted that these should be read with Section 17 of the Limitation Act. They submitted that provisions of Limitation Act would apply in their case as duty paid by them was under mistake of Law and not paid erroneously due to any other reason. They furt....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Assistant Collector's order does not specify under which rule he has considered the claims to be time barred. He has, as pointed out by the appellants, not gone into the merits of the applicability of the Limitation Act in this case. There can, however, not be any dispute that the Limitation Act would apply to quasi-judicial proceedings also and that if the mistake of Law is established by pronou....