AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 145
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....23rd August, 2019 passed by the Deputy Commissioner CGST Division Ahmedabad South. 1.1 The facts of the case in brief are that the appellant was holding a valid Central Excise registration no and were engaged in the manufacturing of I. V. Fluids (Salts, Sugar and Electrolytes) falling under Chapter Heading No. 3004. They have filed refund claim on 27th May, 2019 for an amount of Rs. 21,95,560/- under Section 142(3) of the C.G.S.T. Act, 2017 on the ground that they have made double payment of duty by mistake, for the period from March-2016 to March-2017. On verification of the refund claim, it appeared to the Revenue Authorities that claimant has filed refund claim for Rs. 21,95,560/- which includes Rs. 15,72,845/- as Central Excise Duty ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l dated 23rd August, 2019 and rejected the refund claim filed by the appellant holding that the appellant is not eligible for refund on the ground that the claim has been preferred beyond the time limit prescribed under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and they have failed to produce any substantive evidence of payment of duty made by the appellant in wrong manner. 1.3 Aggrieved with the Order-in-Original passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner, the appellant filed appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeals). The learned Commissioner, by passing impugned order dated 27th April, 2020, rejected the appeal of the appellant and upheld the Order-in-Original passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner. 1.4 Feeling aggrieved ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t has held that, when Service Tax is paid by mistake, a claim for refund cannot be barred by limitation merely because the period of limitation under Section 11B had expired. Such a position would be contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Collector of CE Chandigarh vs. Doaba Cooperative Sugar Mills and therefore, we have no hesitation in holding that the claim of the assessee for the sum of Rs. 4,39,683/- cannot be barred by limitation and ought to be refunded. 2.1 The learned Consultant for the appellant also submitted that the conclusion arrived at by the learned Commissioner in para 7.2 at page 7 of the impugned order is also not sustainable and erroneous. The learned Commissioner has observed that the basic object....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rding to audit was a mistake of law, payment of duty through Cenvat account. 2.2 I agree with the learned Consultant for the appellant that in view of the facts and circumstances of this case, it cannot be concluded that it is the case of contravention of the provisions of Rule 3(4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 rather it is a case of wrong payment of duty of Rs. 15,50,696/- from Cenvat Credit account, in respect of goods cleared under Notification No. 1/2011-CE during the disputed period. There is nothing on record which can prove that the payment of duty from Cenvat Credit account was made by the appellant deliberately so that he is not required to pay the amount of duty in cash from the current account. It appears to be a case of b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e 3(4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. As soon as, the mistake was brought to the notice of the appellant by the audit, the duty was paid by the appellant in cash from the current account along with interest and penalty and therefore, it resulted in double payment of duty by the appellant. On first occasion, it was paid from the Cenvat account and on the second occasion it was paid from account current. These facts have been admitted by the learned Deputy Commissioner in the Order-in-Original dated 23rd August, 2019. 4.2 In 3E Infotech Ltd vs. CESTAT Chennai reported in 2018 (18) GSTL 410 (Madras) the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature, Madras has held that when Service Tax was paid under mistake of law, the refund claim is admissible in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ervice even though such service is not leviable to service tax. We are of the view that the decisions relied upon by the Appellate Tribunal do not support the case of the respondent in rejecting the refund claim on the ground that it was bared by limitation. We are, therefore, of the view that the impugned order is unsustainable. We accordingly allow the present appeals and quash and set aside the impugned order, insofar as it is against the appellant in both appeals. We fully allow refund of Rs. 8,96,9621/- preferred by the appellant. We direct that the respondent shall refund the amount to the appellant within a period of three months. There shall be no order as to costs 12. Further, the claim of the respondent in refusing to ret....