TIRATH S. THAKUR, J. ( 1 ) THE only question that falls for consideration in this writ petition is whether a claim for refund of duty paid pursuant to assessments order made under the Customs Act, 1962, can be maintained de hors the Provisions of Section 27 of the said act and beyond the period prescribed therein. The question arises in the following circumstances. ( 2 ) THE petitioner is a public sector undertaking who imported micatapes and samicatherm wrappers falling under customs tariff entry 6814. 90 and central excise tariff entry No. 6807. 00. Besides the customs duty payable on the imports, the petitioner also paid countervailing duty amounting to Rs. 2,14,875/ -. This payment was made pursuant to five different orders of assessment made by the customs authority on the arrival of the imported material on the Indian shores. No objection, it is significant was at any stage raised by the petitioner either as to its liability to pay the said duty or the extent thereof. All the same, more than three years after making the payment the petitioner made an application on 5th of march, 1990, claiming a refund of the amount paid by it. The petitioner's case was that the countervailing duty paid by it was not lawfully recoverable having regard to two exemptions notifications dated 25th of march, 1982 and 11th of june, 1986 issued on the subject. The assistant collector, customs, dismissed this application by his order dated 7th of december, 1990 on the ground that the same had been filed beyond the period prescribed for the purpose by Section 27 of the Customs Act. Aggrieved, the petitioner appealed to the collector of customs (appeals) who dismissed the appeal by his order dated 21st of january, 1991 upholding the view taken by the officer below. The present writ petition calls in question the validity of the said two orders. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner argued that the recovery of. Countervailing duty from the petitioner was in the fact of the exemption notifications relied upon by it, an illegal exaction of money contrary to Article 265 of the constitution. The present writ petition calls in question the validity of the said two orders. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner argued that the recovery of. Countervailing duty from the petitioner was in the fact of the exemption notifications relied upon by it, an illegal exaction of money contrary to Article 265 of the constitution. He urged that the refund of any such illegally collected amount could not be governed or regulated by Section 27 of the Customs Act and that even if a claim for the refund of the amount so collected was made beyond the stipulated period of six months, the authorities below ought to have granted the same. Alternatively, he urged that this court could in exercise of its extraordinary writ jurisdiction direct the refund especially when the respondents had no justification for having assessed or recovered the amount of duty from the petitioner. Reliance in support was placed by the learned counsel upon a division bench decision of this court in assistant Collector of Central Excise and another v Kashyap Engineering and Metallrgicals private limited. ( 4 ) COUNSEL appearing for the respondents on the other hand contended that the question whether a refund would be claimed de hors the provision of Section 27 or beyond the period of limitation prescribed for the purpose was no longer res integra having been authoritatively answered by the Constitution bench decision of the Supreme Court in Mafatlal Industries v Union of India, reliance was also placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India and another v Kirloskar Pneumatic Company Limited and a division bench decision of this court in M/s. Mascot Agro-Chemicals (private) Limited v Assistant Collector of Customs. ( 5 ) SECTION 27 of the Customs Act 1962, inter alia provides that any person claiming refund of any duty paid by him in pursuance of an order of assessment made by an officer 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 within the time stipulated therein. Sub-section (4) of Section 27 stipulates that save as provided in Section 26, no claim for refund of any duty shall be entertained except in accordance with the Provisions of the said section. Sub-section (4) of Section 27 stipulates that save as provided in Section 26, no claim for refund of any duty shall be entertained except in accordance with the Provisions of the said section. On a plain reading of the provision therefore it would appear that refunds if any, arising under the Act, are regulated by the Provisions of Section 27, and that the scheme of the act does not envisage any such refunds except in accordance with the procedure prescribed thereunder. The question whether an amount paid by the assessee which was not otherwise due and recoverable from the assessee could be claimed by way of a refund even outside the provision of Section 27 and beyond the period prescribed therein fell directly for consideration of the Supreme Court in mafatlal industries case, supra. On a review of the entire case law on the subject the court summed up the legal position thus: "where a refund of tax/duty is claimed on the ground that it has been collected from the petitioner/plaintiff whether before the commencement of the central excises and customs laws (Amendment) Act, 1991 or thereafter by misinterpreting or misapplying the Provisions of the central excises and salt Act, 1944 read with central excise tariff Act, 1985 or Customs Act, 1962 read with customs tariff act or by misinterpreting or misapplying any of the rules, regulations or notifications issued under the said enactments, such a claim has necessarily to be preferred under and in accordance with the Provisions of the respective enactment before the authorities specified thereunder and within the period of limitation prescribed therein. No suit is maintainable in that behalf. While the jurisdiction of the high courts under Article 226 - and of this court under Article 32 - cannot be circumscribed by the Provisions of the said enactments, they will certainly have due regard to the legislative intent evidenced by the Provisions of the said acts and would exercise their jurisdiction consistent with the Provisions of the act. The writ petition will be considered and disposed of in the light of and in accordance with the Provisions of Section 11-b. This is for the reason that the power under Article 226 has to be exercised to effectuate the Rule of law and not for abrogating it. The writ petition will be considered and disposed of in the light of and in accordance with the Provisions of Section 11-b. This is for the reason that the power under Article 226 has to be exercised to effectuate the Rule of law and not for abrogating it. Xxx xxx xxx all refund claims except those mentioned under proposition (ii) below have to' be and must be filed and adjudicated under the Provisions of the central excises and salt act or the Customs Act, as the case may be. It is necessary to emphasise in this behalf that act provides a complete mechanism for correcting any errors whether of fact or law and that not only an appeal is provided to a tribunal which is not a departmental organ but to this court, which is a civil court". ( 6 ) THE above in my opinion provides a complete answer to the petitioner's case. The decisions unequivocally declare that refunds under the act can be claimed only in accordance with the Provisions of Section 27 which has been held to constitute 'law' within the meaning of Article 265 of the Constitution of india. The court has declared this at page 30 of the majority judgment in the following words:"we must reiterate that the Provisions of the Central Excise Act also constitute 'law' within the meaning of Article 265 and any collection or retention of tax in accordance or pursuant to the said Provisions is collection or retention under 'the authority of law' within the meaning of the said article". it follows that if a request for refund is not made by the person affected within the prescribed period under Section 27 his remedy to claim return of the amount even when the same may. Not have been recoverable from him is lost. The failure to claim refund within the period stipulated has the effect of legitimising what may have been in the inception either irregular or illegitimate. Section 27 of the act having been declared to be a valid piece of legislation within the meaning of Article 265 of the constitution, the result is that the recovery and retention of the money although strictly speaking not recoverable from the citizen concerned shall be treated to be a recovery with the authority of law. Section 27 of the act having been declared to be a valid piece of legislation within the meaning of Article 265 of the constitution, the result is that the recovery and retention of the money although strictly speaking not recoverable from the citizen concerned shall be treated to be a recovery with the authority of law. There is as is apparent from a reading of the conclusions extracted above only one exception to that general Rule namely where the recovery is made in terms of a provision which is declared constitutionally invalid. In any such case, the refund would fall outside the purview of the enactment and would therefore be immune from the rigors of Section 27. To the same effect is the view taken by the apex court in kirloskar's case, supra, also. In that case the argument that the high court could under Article 226 of the Constitution direct the authorities to grant refund was repelled in no uncertain terms. The court observed that the Provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution could not be invoked to direct the officers to ignore a validly made provision of law like Section 27 of the Customs Act. The jurisdiction under Article 226 could on the contrary be invoked only to direct the authorities to act in accordance with law and not in defiance thereof. In the division bench, decision of this court, relied upon by the respondent, a similar view has been taken relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in collector of central Excise, Chandigarh v Doaba Co-Operative Sugar Mills Limited, jalandhar. In the light of the above pronouncements therefore the contrary view taken by the division bench of this court in kashyap engineering's case, supra, must be deemed to have been impliedly overruled. ( 7 ) IN the result, this writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed, but, in the circumstances without any orders as to costs. --- *** --- .