2026-VIL-266-CESTAT-MUM-CE
  1. Home
  2. 2026-VIL-266-CESTAT-MUM-CE

CENTRAL EXCISE CESTAT Cases

Central Excise - Time limitation for refund claim under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 of Central Excise duty paid through reversal of CENVAT credit - Appellant availed the benefit of full exemption from payment of central excise duty on their final products by reversing the CENVAT credit, in compliance with the condition prescribed under Notification No. 30/2004-C.E. dated 09.07.2004. The appellants later filed a refund claim relying on the Tribunal's decisions in certain other cases which held that the amendment to Rule 11(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 requiring reversal of CENVAT credit was prospective and not retrospective. The refund claim was rejected by the lower authorities on the ground of limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Whether the refund claim filed by the appellants on 02.06.2017 for the central excise duty paid by them on 17.07.2004 by way of reversal of CENVAT credit is maintainable and within the limitation period prescribed under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 – HELD - The payment of central excise duty by the appellants through reversal of CENVAT credit was not under a "mistake of law", but was a conscious decision taken by them to avail the full exemption from payment of central excise duty on their final products under Notification No. 30/2004-C.E. dated 09.07.2004. The refund claims can be made only under and in accordance with the provisions of the Act, and not by way of a suit or writ petition on the ground of "mistake of law". The theory of "mistake of law" and the consequent period of limitation of three years from the date of discovery of such mistake cannot be invoked by an assessee taking advantage of the decision in another assessee's case - In the present case, since the final products are admittedly excisable goods, on which there is a levy of central excise duty payable on its clearance and the reversal/payment of input credit also relates to duty of excise on inputs, there is no case of any levy without authority of law to claim refund by the appellants on the grounds of ‘illegal/unconstitutional levy’ or payment of duty under ‘mistake of law’. The refund claim filed by the appellants after a lapse of almost 13 years from the date of payment of duty is clearly barred by limitation under Section 11B of the CEA, 1944 - The impugned order rejecting the refund claim is upheld and the appeal is dismissed
Download File

Quick Search

/

Advance Search

GST Resources

/

Gst Rate Finder

Tax Vista

Your Weekly Tax Recap

By Kasi Viswanathan V

Weekly Summary

VIL Video

Analysis of Union Budget 2026-27:
By CA Vivek Jalan

Create Account

Security-Code
New Code?

Log In

New User ? Forgot Password ?

Forgot Password

Security-Code
New Code?
Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page

Feedback this page

Schedule a Demo

Schedule a demo to know the features and advantages of VILGST portal. Get to know the tips to find the desired results in faster way.

Caselaw Request Form (CRF)

Didn’t find what you are searching for? No worries, please give us the following details and VIL will email you the desired Caselaws at the earliest:

Security-Code
New Code?