SUSANTA CHATTERJI, J. ( 1 ) THE present Rule was issued on 30- 7-1985 at the instance of the writ petitioners Corrugating and Paper Processing Company (P) Ltd. and its Director, praying, inter alia, for a declaration that Section 11 -B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 is ultra vires, for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash and/or set aside the order/decision dated 16. 6. 1984 issued by the respondent No. 2, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta XIV Division, Calcutta and the impugned order in Appeal dated 23-2-1985 passed by the respondent No. 1, Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Calcutta and for consequential order to refund the sum of Rs. 2. 40 lakhs collected from the petitioners in excess of the central excise duty during the year 1981-82 and/or a direction upon the respondents to consider the petitioners' representation dated 7-4-1984 for refund of the amount paid in excess in the light of exemption notification No. 105/80-CE dated 19-6-1980 as amended and for other reliefs as fully stated in the writ petition. ( 2 ) THE writ petition and the rule thereon are contested by filing affidavit in opposition. The petitioners have also filed reply thereto reiterating the stand taken in the writ petition. ( 3 ) HAVING heard Mr. R. N. Das, learned counsel for the writ petitioners and Mr. Samarender Nath Banerjee, learned counsel for the respondents Central Excise authorities and considering the materials on record, it appears to this Court that the petitioners have averred and prayed that by notification No. 105/80-CE dated 19-6-1980 as amended by notification No. 48/81 -CE dated 1 -3-1981, No. 72/81 -CE dated 25-3-1981 and No. 127/81 -CE dated 8-6-1981 issued under Rule 8 (1) of the Central Excise Rules, the Central Government granted exemption to first clearance of goods Rs. 30 lakhs in respect of goods falling under Tariff Item No. 68 upon fulfilment of certain conditions. ( 4 ) IT is alleged that the petitioners do come under the cover of the said exemption and they are entitled to claim exemption of payment of Central Excise duties. Through inadvertence the petitioners filed the prescribed form and erroneously did not claim any exemption. ( 4 ) IT is alleged that the petitioners do come under the cover of the said exemption and they are entitled to claim exemption of payment of Central Excise duties. Through inadvertence the petitioners filed the prescribed form and erroneously did not claim any exemption. Upon discovery of the same, the petitioners prayed for refund and challenged the order of assessment and/or the letter refusing to consider their representation in their letter dated 7-4-1984 and against the letter refusing to consider the petitioners' prayer, issued by the order of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise as communicated in the memo dated 16-6-1984, the writ petitioners preferred an appeal. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), found that the appeal was not in form and/or against the purported letter dated 16-6-1984 no appeal lies. The appeal was rejected as a nullity. ( 5 ) BEING aggrieved by and/or dissatisfied with the said order/decision dated 16-6- 1984 ana the impugned order in appeal dated 23-2-1985, the petitioners have come up to ( 6 ) MR. Das, learned counsel has mainly submitted that it is, however, admitted by the contesting respondents in their affidavit in opposition that where there is yery fair admission that the petitioners are covered by the notification No. 105/80-CE dated 19-6-1980, while the petitioners are covered by the said notification, they should not suffer due to their inadvertence and/or mistake committed by them in not claiming exemption In proper time. There should be a review assessment and upon proper steps in assessing the matter, the amount claimed by the petitioners should be refunded. Mr. Das has not pressed the challenge towards the vires of Section 11-B of the Act. In support of this contention, he has drawn the attention of this Court to a judgment reported in 1979 ELT (J 396) (Madras Port Trust v. Hymanshu International ). ( 7 ) IT appears from the said judgment that the claim of the respondents for refund of the amount in wharfage, demurrage and transit charges paid to the appellant was barred by Section 110 of the Madras Port Trust Act. ( 7 ) IT appears from the said judgment that the claim of the respondents for refund of the amount in wharfage, demurrage and transit charges paid to the appellant was barred by Section 110 of the Madras Port Trust Act. The Supreme Court found that the plea of limitation based on the section is one which the Court always looks upon with a disfavour and It is unfortunate that a public authority like the Port Trust should, In all morality and justice, take up such a plea to defeat a just claim of the citizen. It is high time that Government and public authorities adopt the practice of not relying upon the technical pleas for the purpose of defeating legitimate claims of citizens and do what is fair and just to the citizen. Of course, if a Government or a public authority takes up a technical plea, the Court has to decide it and if the plea is well founded, it has to be upheld by the Court, but It was felt that such a plea should not ordinarily be taken up by a Government or a public authority unless of course the claim Is not well founded and by reason of delay in filing the same, the evidence for the purpose of resisting such a claim has become unavailable. ( 8 ) MR. Das, learned counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court to the decision "shibsankar Dal Mills v. State of Haryana and Ors. " wherein it was observed that where public bodies, under colour of public laws, recover people's money, later discovered to be erroneously levied, the dharma of the situation demands of no equivocation. There is no law of limitation, specially for public bodies, on the virtue of returning what was wrongly recovered to whom it belongs. Nor It is palatable to our jurisprudence to turn down the prayer for prerogative writs on the negative pleas of alternative remedy. ( 9 ) THE attention of this Court has also been drawn to a very recent judgment reported In 1986 (25) ELT 867 (Commissioner of Sales Tax, U. P. v. Auriaya Chamber of Commerce, Allahabad) wherein the aspect of the duty paid under mistake of law and/or admisslbillty of refund under provisions of Section 72 of the Indian Contract Act was considered. It has been found that Section 72 of the Act recognises that a person to whom money has been paid or delivered, by mistake or under coercion, must repay or return It. ( 10 ) MR. Banerjee, learned counsel for the respondents has very strongly submitted that the excise authority Is not a charitable institution. One must know what is his right. If the petitioners have not asked for exemption In the manner provided In the notification as indicated above, It is not for the excise authorities to grant charities and to refund the amount in the manner as claimed. ( 11 ) THE question of limitation has a good foundation by looking to the rights and obligations of the respective parties. It cannot be said that by way of technicalities the claim should not be defeated and the prayer for refund should be easily granted without considering the question of limitation. He has emphasised upon Section 11 -B of the Central Excise Acts and Rules. It is clearly provided therein that any person claiming refund of any duty of excise may make an application for refund of such duty to the Assistant Collector of Central Excise before the expiry of six months (from the relevant date) provided that the limitation of six months shall not apply wherein duty has been paid under protest. ( 12 ) IT also appears that if no receipt of such an application the Assistant Collector of Central Excise is satisfied that the whole or any part of the excise paid by the applicant should be refunded to him he may make an order accordingly. Where as a result of any order passed in the Court below or under this Hon'ble Court, revision of any excess becomes due to any person the Assistant Collector of Central Excise may refund the amount to such person (s) without his having to make any claim in that behalf. According to Mr. Banerjee, unless the petitioners are able to make out a case within the scope of Section 11 -B of the Act, the prayer as made In the writ petition cannot be straightway considered in its proper perspective. The technicalities are not bereft of the sound principle of law and by way of substantial justice, the Rules cannot be overlooked unnecessarily. Banerjee, unless the petitioners are able to make out a case within the scope of Section 11 -B of the Act, the prayer as made In the writ petition cannot be straightway considered in its proper perspective. The technicalities are not bereft of the sound principle of law and by way of substantial justice, the Rules cannot be overlooked unnecessarily. ( 13 ) HAVING considered the submissions of the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties, and upon perusal of the matters on record and the scope of the writ petition as found above, and looking to the principle of law as cited from the Bar, this Court has found that in fact, it is not disputed that the petitioners are entitled to exemption as provided in the notification as indicated above. The question is that by claiming exemption whether they can ask for refund after having paid rightly or inadvertently. The petitioners have made a representation stating all the relevant facts in their application dated 7-4-1984. It appears to this Court that there is no proper application of mind to consider the said representation dated 7-4-1984 and It had been found that the petitioners are entitled to the exemption as provided in the notification whether there is any bar to payment according to law. The decision arrived at by the order of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise in the communication dated 16-6-1984 suffers from inherent defects. Consequently, the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) has not appreciated the scope of the order and the scope of the entire case as made out by the petitioners. The appellate forum has avoided the responsibility to come to a proper conclusion and to adjudicate the matter in its proper perspective also. This Court with all anxieties scrutinised the cases as canvassed by both the sides and it finds that upon clear conception of the case, the petitioners are covered by the notification to be entitled to the exemption and can certainly ask for the refund. The authorities should have assessed the matter by giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and by passing a reasoned order in accordance with law. ( 14 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order dated 16-6-1984 and the order in appeal dated 23-2-1985 are set aside. The authorities should have assessed the matter by giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and by passing a reasoned order in accordance with law. ( 14 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order dated 16-6-1984 and the order in appeal dated 23-2-1985 are set aside. The respondents-authorities are directed to consider the representation of the petitioners dated 7-4-1984 by giving a chance of personal hearing, and passing necessary orders indicating inter alia, as to whether the petitioners are entitled to refund according to law. It is made clear that at the time of such reconsideration, the question of limitation will not stand in the way and it is also made dearthat the respondents will consider that the petitioners do not take advantage of double benefits. ( 15 ) THE rule is made absolute thus to that extent indicated above without any order for costs.