SUSANTA CHATTERJI, J. ( 1 ) THE Court: The print writ petition has been filed by Orissa State Electricity Board for issuance of a writ of Mandamus commanding the Respondents to cancel and/or rescind the orders passed by the Respondents nos. 1 and 2 being the Collector of Customs (Appeal) and the Assistant Collector of Customs respectively and to refry them from giving effect to and/or from taking any steps in terms thereof or thereunder and to refund to the petitioner the sum of Rs. 9,54,983. 42p. as detailed thereof in paragraph 7 of the Writ petition on the ground that that the order passed by the Respondent no. 2, the Assistant Collector of Customs, is in violation of the principles of natural justice and the impugned orders have been passed by the Respondents nos. 1 and 2 respectively with total non-application mind. ( 2 ) IT is contended that the Respondents nos. 1 and 2 faded to appreciate that the period of limitation prescribed under section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 is not applicable in the instant case and the Respondents nos. 1 and 2 ought to have held that the provisions of section 27 of the Customs Act cannot apply to such payments. By looking at the respondents orders it appears that an application was filed by Orissa-state-electricity Board and the same was rejected being time barred in terms of section 27of the customs act barred in terms of section 27 of the Customs Act as the claim appeared to have been filed on 2. 12. 86 seeking refund of the duty paid on 174. 86. The appellants Authority considered the matter and was convinced that appellants did not have any case in as much as section 27 of the customs act specifically provides that the claim for refund has to be filed within six months from the date of payment of duty unless the payment was made under protest. In the instant case, it was found that the payment was made not under protest and as such, the claim for refund should have been filed with in the statutory time limit of six months. Accordingly the appeal was dismissed. ( 3 ) BEING aggrieved the petitioner has come to the Hon'ble Court. ( 4 ) MR. In the instant case, it was found that the payment was made not under protest and as such, the claim for refund should have been filed with in the statutory time limit of six months. Accordingly the appeal was dismissed. ( 3 ) BEING aggrieved the petitioner has come to the Hon'ble Court. ( 4 ) MR. Chatterjee, the learned Advocate for the petitioner, has drawn the attention of the Court to section 27 of the customs Act which indicates, inter alia , that any person claiming refund of any duty paid by him in pursuance of an order of assessment made by an order of Customs lower in rank than an Assistant Collector of Customs may make an application for refund of such duty to the Assistant Collector of Customs - (a) In the case of any import made by any individuals for his personal use or by Government or by any educational, research or charitable institution or hospital, before the expiry of one year; (b ). In any other case, before, the expiry of six months, from the date of payment of duty, provided that the limitation of one year or six months, as the case may be, shall not apply where any duty has been paid under protest, ( 5 ) ADMITTEDLY, in the instant case, no duty has been paid under protest. The question does not apply for one year where the goods have been imported in terms of clause (a) This case is well covered by the situation as covered by Section 27 (1) (b) of the Customs Act. ( 6 ) MR. Chatterjee has further drawn the attention of this Court to a decision reported in 1986 (26) ELT, p. 298 (Cal) (Dilichand Shreelal v. Collector of Central Excise and Ors ). The point was considered as to the duty paid under mistake of law the theory of unjust enrichment not applicable to the claim of refund of duty recovered from the manufacturer without authority of law even if he has collected it from the customers and the manufacturer has no intention to refund to them. ( 7 ) THERE is nothing in the said case that a writ court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India will exercise jurisdiction to cause refund of the duty paid without looking to section 27 of the Customs Act. ( 7 ) THERE is nothing in the said case that a writ court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India will exercise jurisdiction to cause refund of the duty paid without looking to section 27 of the Customs Act. The scope of refund and the duty paid under mistake of law have to he considered in the proper perspective. ( 8 ) CHATTERJEE has also dry the attention of this Court to another decision reported in 1986 (25) ELT, SC, page 867 (Commissioner of sales Tax, UP v. Auriaya Chamber of Commerce, Allahabad ). There the Supreme Court has found that it is true that except special provisions there is no provisions which prescribes a procedure for applying for re fund in such a But the rules or procedure are hand maids of justice and not its mistress. It is apparent in the Scheme of the Act that sales tax is leviable only on valid transaction. If the excess amount is released, refund is also contemplated by the Scheme of the Act. In the case before the Supreme Court sales tax on forwards contracts had been illegally recovered on a mistaken view of law. The same was found to be lying with the Government where indubitably there is in the dealer legal title to get the money refunded and where the dealer is not guilty of any laches and where there is no specific prohibition against refund, one should not get entangled in the cobweb of procedures but do substantial justice. The above requirements in the above case have been satisfied and, therefore, the direction of the Additional Judge (Revisions) Sales tax for refund of the amount to the dealer and affirmed by the High Court was considered. ( 9 ) IN the said case them was no consideration of the provisions of section 27 of the Customs Act under any stretch of imagination. ( 10 ) MR. Chatterjee has also drawn the attention of this Court to a decision reported in 1978 (2) ELT (J), Madras, p 630 (Assistant Collector of customs, Madras and Ors. ,v Premraj and Ganapatraj and Co. P. Ltd. . In the said case there was the consideration of refund duty under Writ. There was also consideration of section 27 of Customs Act, Rule 11 of Central Excise Rules and Article 226 of the Constitution of India. ,v Premraj and Ganapatraj and Co. P. Ltd. . In the said case there was the consideration of refund duty under Writ. There was also consideration of section 27 of Customs Act, Rule 11 of Central Excise Rules and Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Madras High Court found the duty was paid without taking in account the exemption Notification refund application filed after the expiry of time limit was rejected. The High Court holds recovery of tax without the authority of law and directed refund of duty. ( 11 ) HAVING thus heard in detail this Court finds that the Respondent-Authorities as indicated above considered the case of the petitioner for refund and rejected the prayer only on the ground of limitation. This Court finds on scrutiny that section 27 clearly indicates that six-month's time has to be computed from the date of payment of the duty. In the instant case, there is no ambiguity from the date of payment and the date of payment of the application. There is no case of illegal exercise of jurisdiction to realise duty. There is no ambiguity and there is no question of application of any other law to enable to Customs Authorities to consider the ease of the claim for refund of the duty. It is to be remembered that the writ court is not sitting in appeal upon each and every order passed by the statutory authorities. The writ court will set it right if there is any act committed beyond jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction of there is any manifest injustice. This writ court has to examine the decision making process in the proper perspective. This court has very carefully looked into the matter and does not find any merit in the writ application to interfere. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed without Cost. Petition rejected.