ORDER R.S. Garg, J. 1. It is not in dispute before me that the Central Govt. issued notification No. 237/75, dated 19.12.75 and exempted steel ingots manufactured with the help and assistance of electric furnace from the payment of the duty of excise leviable on the said item. It is also not in dispute that by another notification dated 9.4.79 bearing No. 156/79-CE the earlier notification was amended and it was notified that the steel and goods manufactured with the aid of electric furnace is exempted from payment of duty above Rs. 100/- per metric tons. It is also not in dispute that on the date of the notification i.e. 9.4.79/491 -806 metric tons steel ingots were lying in stock with the petitioner and he paid the duty Rs. 100/- per maturations amounting to Rs. 49180-60 and also paid 5% surplus duty on the duty already paid by him amounting to Rs. 2459-03. On 20.9.80 mere was some circular issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs which was circulated by the Central Excise Collector, Indore as circular No. 52/1980 dated 14.10.80 and it was clarified that no duty was leviable, on the steel ingots lying in stock in fully manufactured condition on the mid-night between 8th and 9th April 1979. The circular further directed that all pending cases should be decided in the light of the said instructions. After issuance of the said notification/clarification circular the petitioner filed their application u/s 118 of Central Excise & Salt Act, 1944 on 7.2.81 claiming the refund of the excise duty paid by them on the ground that as the steel ingots were ready and already manufactured and were not in stock in the night intervening 8th and 9th April, 1979 they were not liable to pay the excise duty and the department was not entitled to recover the same therefore the said amount of duty be refunded. 2. The petitioner submitted in the application that the application was well within limitation, it was filed within a period of 6 months from the date of knowledge as the knowledge was derived by them from the circular dated 20.9.80. The application was rejected by order dated 8.1.82 passed by the Asstt. Collector, Central Excise, Raipur holding that the application for retuned was barred by limitation and the claim could not be entertained. The application was rejected by order dated 8.1.82 passed by the Asstt. Collector, Central Excise, Raipur holding that the application for retuned was barred by limitation and the claim could not be entertained. The petitioner being dissatisfied with the order took up the matter in appeal to the Collector, Central Excise (Appeals) New Delhi. The Collector (Appeals) by order dated 9.5.84 (Annexure. P-4) allowed the appeal and directed that the application be considered afresh and the same be not treated to be barred by limitation. The Collector Central Excise feeling aggrieved by the order of the Collector, Central Excise (Appeals) took up the matter to customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal by its order dated 1.3.85 (Ex. P-5) passed in ED (SS) A. No. 1417/84-B allowed the appeal and quashed the orders passed by the Collector, Central Excise (Appeals) and held that the application was rightly rejected as barred by limitation. The petitioner challenges the correctness, validity and propriety of the order passed by the tribunal. 3. Shri Sanjay Dwivedi for the petitioner submits that the claim for refund of the duty paid under the mistake of law would not be governed by the provisions of Section 11-3 of the Act and Such an application cannot be rejected only on the technical grounds. He Further submits that when the mistake of law came to the knowledge of the petitioner, the limitation would start running from that date only because any other construction of Section 11-B would lead to unjust enrichment in favour of the department. On the other hand Shri Siddiqui learned counsel for the respondents/department submits that the departmental authorities are bound by the provisions of law and if the law provides that the limitation would be 6 months from the date of payment of the duty then there is no scope for the any other interpretation but to hold that the application was required to be filed within a period of a 6 months from the date of payment of duty. 4. In the matter of Vallabhdas Vs. Union of India, Civil Appeal No. 3338/79 decided on 14.3.84 the Supreme Court has clearly held that when the excise duty was assessed on assessee's instance there would be no estoppel in seeking refund if such a refund is permissible under the law. 4. In the matter of Vallabhdas Vs. Union of India, Civil Appeal No. 3338/79 decided on 14.3.84 the Supreme Court has clearly held that when the excise duty was assessed on assessee's instance there would be no estoppel in seeking refund if such a refund is permissible under the law. The authority stated that the period of limitation for seeking refund would start from the date of the knowledge of mistake of law. In the instant case it cannot be disputed that because of certain confusion the department was required to issue clarification circular. If language of circular No. 156/79 dated 9.4.79 was clear and understandable then there was no requirement of issuing the clarification. When a clarification is issued it presupposes that because of some ambiguity in the language the department was suffering some problem. By the clarification circular dated 14.10.80 it was made clear that no duty was leviable on the steel ingots lying in stock in the fully manufactured condition on the midnight of 8th and 9th April, 1979. The circular was required to be issued because in the earlier circular it was not made clear as to whether the stock lying in manufactured condition, on the date of enforcement of circular No. 156/79/CE, was excisable or not. From the records it is clear that for the first time the department issued the circular on 14.10.80, in view of Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi No. 139/19/79/CK/4 dated 20.9.80,. Almost every High Court has held that an application for the refund of the payment of the duty made under the mistake of law and recovered without the authority of law, the period of limitation prescribed under the Act would have no application. 5. In the matter of 1988(16) E.C.C. 114 it was held that where the assessee paid excess excise duty being ignorant of the fact that he was entitled to certain exemption under the exemption notification the assessee would be entitled to the refund of duty. In 1987 (10) E.C.R. 172 it was held that where the respondents collected duty which was not and could not be excise duty as no excise duty was leviable on the sub-product then the collection of purported duty would be illegal and so was its retention. In 1987 (10) E.C.R. 172 it was held that where the respondents collected duty which was not and could not be excise duty as no excise duty was leviable on the sub-product then the collection of purported duty would be illegal and so was its retention. The court further held that the respondents cannot defeat the claim of the petitioner for refund on the plea of limitation and retain the money which they were not authorised to collect. In 1988 (34) E.L.T. 465 the Allahabad High Court held that since the occasion to apply for refund is on the knowledge that goods in respect of which the amount was collected were entitled to exemption the application should be made within 6 months from the date of knowledge of mistake of law. The catena of authorities clearly lay down that if the excise duty was paid under the mistake of law, or was recovered under the mistaken is belief of law or without authority of law then the claim of such person who is entitled to refund cannot be defeated on the ground of limitation and in case where the clarifications are issued in regard to levy of the excise duty the limitation for refund would be 6 months from the date of such clarification. 6. It is also to be seen that in a case like present if that department is permitted to take the benefit of the limitation then it would certainly amount to unjust enrichment in favour of the department. If unjust enrichment cannot be permitted to a litigent, it should also not be permitted to the State. The State has not right to collect unauthorised tax or illegal tax, Good fiscal administration enjoins that all lawful taxes should be properly collected and the taxes which are not due if collected or realised by the State, they should be refunded. Such fiscal administration alone ensures the atmosphere of tax compliance. 7. From the facts of the case it is clear that the petitioner was not liable to pay the excise duty on the goods if those were in the stock so finished/manufactured goods on the date when the subsequent notification dated 9..4.79 was issued. 8. The order passed by the tribunal is patently illegal. It deserves to and is accordingly quashed. The order passed by the Collector, Central Excise (Appeals) is restored. 8. The order passed by the tribunal is patently illegal. It deserves to and is accordingly quashed. The order passed by the Collector, Central Excise (Appeals) is restored. The matter is remitted back to the Asstt. Collector, Central Excise to hold an inquiry into the allegation of the petitioner regarding the position of the stock on the date when the amendment notification came into force and to decide the extent to which the petitioner would be entitled to the refund. As the matter is very old it is expected of the Asstt. Collector that he should dispose of the matter within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of this order. The Registry is directed to send a copy of the order to the Asstt. Collector, Central Excise immediately. The Asstt. Collector Central Excise shall issue notice to the petitioner for his appearance and shall give him a fair and reasonable opportunity to prove his case. There shall he no order as to costs. The security amount if any deposited by the petitioner shall be refunded to him.