1990 (1) TMI 74

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to refund the excise duty said to have been paid by them under a mistake of law in respect of what has been described as scantlings. 2. Shortly stated, the relevant facts are that the petitioner carries on the business of designing and erecting cooling towers as per requirements of its customers. In erecting these coolin....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....gs were liable to excise duty. The applications for refund were accordingly dismissed. The applications were also dismissed on the ground that the same were barred by limitation applying the limitation prescribed under Section 11-B of the Central Excise Act. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the Assistant Collector the petitioner filed an appeal which was also dismissed. A further appeal filed by th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....not depend on whether the payment was made under protest or otherwise. We are further of the opinion that to such claims the bar of Section 11-B does not apply. We are fully fortified by the decisions of this court in which it has been consistently ruled relying on Supreme Court decisions that where payments are made under a mistake of law, the bar of limitation created under Section 11-B of the C....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r's application for refund was filed promptly thereafter in February 1981. If we were to apply three years rule, the application for refund would be within time. In any case, the petitioner's claim that the excise duty was not payable on scantlings was upheld by the aforesaid Tribunal only on 1-6-1988. It was held that scantlings were not liable to excise duty. Even if, therefore, the petitioner's....