TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1990 (9) TMI 83
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....alia manufacture insulating enamels, varnishes and resins for electrical industry in the factory at Pimpri, Pune. The petitioners manufacture a product known as 'Insulation Adhesive P80'. The adhesive is obtained by dissolving duty paid polyvinyl alcohol powder in water. The petitioners classified the manufacture of adhesive under Tariff Item No. 15(1) (i) of the First Schedule to the Central Exci....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... law. The petitioners thereupon forwarded revised classification list dated March 12, 1980, to the Assistant Collector. The revised classification list was approved by the Assistant Collector on September 20, 1980. The petitioners thereafter on September 30, 1980 sought refund of duty wrongly paid for the period commencing from March 12, 1980 to September 30, 1980. The claim was granted by the Ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....view taken by the Asstt. Collector holding that the claim is barred by Rule 11 is not correct. The learned counsel submitted that even otherwise, the defence of limitation is not available to the department in a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution, when the duty was paid by the assessee under a mistake of law. By catena of decisions of this Court and of the Supreme Court, it is settl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s Court in New India Industries Ltd. v. Union of India (1990 (46) E.L.T. 23) that the writ Court is required to satisfy that the tax burden is in fact shifted by the assessee to others and an order of refund would result in unjust enrichment. It is undoubtedly true that in accordance with the Full Bench decision, it is necessary for the Court to ascertain whether the tax burden has been shifted by....