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

..... 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'), and the petitioners were paying excise duty and clear .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... er 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 ground that the refund claim was made beyond the period o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s 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 11 B of the Excise Act) and the authorities could not h .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X