9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (8) TMI 84X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioners are challenging legality of order dated January 26, 1984 passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Division K-II, Bombay. By the impugned order the Assistant Collector rejected five refund claims filed by the petitioner Company on the ground that all the claims are time-barred under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act read with Rule 11 and Rule 173J of the Central Excise R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rated waters in the manufacture of which blended flavouring concentrates in any form was used. In spite of the exemption notification the Company under mistake of law paid the duty at the rate of 20% ad valorem between the period March 17, 1972 to October 11, 1976. This Court by judgment delivered on October 11, 1976 in Miscellaneous Petition No. 944 of 1973 interpreted the scope of the expressi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arch 22, 1979 the Company filed five refund claims for the sum of Rs. 68,07,206.26 for the period from March 17, 1972 and ending with October 17, 1976. The company claimed that excess duty was paid without claiming advantage of exemption notification under mistake of law and therefore the Department is liable to refund the said excess duty. The Assistant Collector on October 16, 1980 passed ex par ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioners are entitled to the refund of excise duty paid under mistake of law. The submission is correct and deserves acceptance. By catena of decisions of this Court it is settled that the Department cannot retain the excess duty recovered without any authority of law. It is well-settled that for realisation of excess duty paid under mistake of law the period of limitation set out under Section 11B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
