1986 (7) TMI 122

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ners are entitled to refund of the excise duty paid under mistake of law. Petitioner No. 1 is a Public Limited Company and manufacture urea formaldehyde padding solution and cross linking agents. The items manufactured by the petitioners were classified as falling under Tariff Item 15A of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Excise Act'), a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er Tariff Item 68 of Central Excise Tariff. 2. After publication of the Trade Notice on April 18, 1977, the petitioners filed refund applications on July 27, 1977 seeking refund of excise duty paid for the period commencing from October 1, 1974 to March 31, 1976. The refund applications were rejected by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Kalyan by order dated February 16, 1979 on the grou....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....and recovered under mistake of law is clearly erroneous and unsustainable. The learned counsel urged that it is now well settled that in case duty is paid by or recovered under mistake of law, then the limitation prescribed under Rule 11 will have no application. Shri Rege, learned Counsel for the respondents, submitted that the excise authorities were bound by Rule 11 (since replaced by Section 1....