9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (11) TMI 107X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... el for the petitioners, orally applied for amendment of the petition. Application is rejected. 1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are challenging legality of order dated July 9,1985 passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Kalyan. By the impugned order two different applications filed by the petitioners were rejected on the groun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ers claimed that on being aware of the decision of CEGAT, the petitioners realised that excise duty was paid under mistake of law and therefore refund application was filed. The petitioners also claimed that another product manufactured and known as Standard Water Treatment Plan, was exempted from payment of excise duty under Notification No. 179/77 dated June 18,1977. The petitioners claimed that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he decision reported in 1983 (14) E.L.T. 2106 [Leukoplast (India) Ltd. v.Union of India & Ors]. It is undoubtedly true that the rule has no application to a case where the duty has been paid under mistake of law and where the refund has been applied for within a reasonable period of time after realisation of mistake. The assertion of the petitioners that excise duty was paid under mistake of law i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
