https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775070 An inadvertent double payment made without any underlying excise liability was treated as a revenue deposit, not as duty of excise. On that basis, the refund claim was held outside the limitation in section 11B of the Central Excise Act, because the amount had been collected without authority of law and could not be retained merely due to expiry of the duty-refund period. The refund claim was therefore maintainable. en-us Thu, 17 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 17 Jul 2025 14:21:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775070 An inadvertent double payment made without any underlying excise liability was treated as a revenue deposit, not as duty of excise. On that basis, the refund claim was held outside the limitation in section 11B of the Central Excise Act, because the amount had been collected without authority of law and could not be retained merely due to expiry of the duty-refund period. The refund claim was therefore maintainable. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 17 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775070