2026-VIL-1182-GUJ-CE
  1. Home
  2. 2026-VIL-1182-GUJ-CE

CENTRAL EXCISE High Court Cases

Central Excise - Refund of duty deposited pursuant to audit objection - Limitation under Section 11B of the CEA, 1944 - Absence of words 'under protest' - Respondent deposited differential duty on sales tax recovered under the head of other charges, after an audit objection was raised, and similar duty was paid by its other units. The issue was later decided in favour of the Respondent on merits in the case of its other unit - Respondent then claimed refund, which was rejected as barred by limitation, but the Tribunal allowed the appeal. The Appellant (Revenue) contended that the payment was voluntary and therefore the one year limitation under Section 11B applied - Whether duty deposited at the instance of the department, without the words 'under protest', is a voluntary payment so as to attract the limitation under Section 11B - HELD - The Tribunal recorded a finding of fact that the Respondent had not paid the duty suo moto but had deposited it at the behest of the department pursuant to the audit objection. The adjudicating authority itself had observed in the interest proceedings that the Respondent had not paid the duty voluntarily - Once the issue attained finality in favour of the Respondent, the nature of the payment is that of payment under protest, and it makes no difference whether the amount was deposited by one unit or another. The time limit of one year under Section 11B is therefore not applicable, and in any case the refund claim was filed within one year from the date of the Tribunal's decision - The Tribunal was justified in allowing the refund claim, no substantial question of law arises - The appeal of the Revenue is rejected - Refund claim based on decision rendered in case of another unit of the same assessee - Respondent claimed refund of duty paid by one of its units on the strength of the Tribunal's decision on merits in the case of its other unit, which had attained finality – Appellant-Revenue contended that the two units had different registration numbers, that the other unit was 'another person' and refund cannot be claimed on the basis of a decision in another person's case - HELD - Even on merits, the department was not entitled to recover the duty, and it makes no difference whether the duty related to one unit or another unit of the assessee. The ruling relied upon by the Revenue is not applicable in the facts of the case, as the assessee cannot be said to have relied on the decision in the case of another person. The definition of 'person' under Section 4(3) of the Act for valuation of excisable goods includes inter-connected undertakings - The ruling of the Apex Court in Mafatlal Industries relied upon by the Revenue is not applicable - The appeal is rejected
Download File
show more Judgements  

Quick Search

/

Advance Search

GST Resources

/

Gst Rate Finder

Tax Vista

Your Weekly Tax Recap

By Dr. G. Gokul Kishore

Weekly Summary

VIL Video

GST & Customs updates: Sep'26
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

Security-Code
New Code?

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.

Security-Code
New Code?

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?