This compilation indexes twelve tribunal and Supreme Court rulings decided between January 2026 and April 2026 in which Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was a cited provision. The cases span CESTAT benches at Chennai, New Delhi, Ahmedabad, Chandigarh, Allahabad, and Bangalore, as well as the Supreme Court of India. The compilation is intended for tax litigation researchers, indirect-tax counsel, and in-house compliance teams tracking the adjudicatory treatment of demand-recovery and CENVAT credit proceedings under the Central Excise Act.

Disclaimer: This page is a structured research index only. Nothing here constitutes legal or tax advice. Verify every ruling against the full text of the judgment before relying on it for any purpose.

The statutory framework in one paragraph

Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 governs the recovery of duties of excise that have not been levied, not been paid, have been short-levied, short-paid, or erroneously refunded. The provision prescribes the mechanism by which the Central Excise authorities may issue a show cause notice demanding payment of such duties, sets out the time limits within which such notices must be issued (with an extended period available in cases involving fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts), and confers the adjudicating authority with power to confirm or drop the demand after considering the assessee's response. Sub-section (4), referenced in several of the rulings below, deals with specific recovery scenarios under which demands may be confirmed and recovered. The section operates alongside related provisions such as Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 in cases where wrongly-availed CENVAT credit is sought to be recovered.

The 12 rulings

1. Sree Rengaraj Ispat Industries Pvt Ltd vs Salem

Bench: Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Date: 27 April 2026
Sections engaged: 11A
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: This appeal (Excise Appeal No. 41843 of 2017) arose from Order-in-Original No. 05/2017 (CE-Commissioner) passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax (Audit), Coimbatore. Per the source preview, during the period from 01.04.2013 to 31.10.2015 the appellant paid Additional Duty of Customs (CVD) at the concessional rate of 2% on imported steam coal under Notification No. 12/2012-Cus and availed CENVAT credit of the same; the Department issued a Show Cause Notice dated 22.04.2016 proposing recovery of CENVAT credit amounting to Rs. 3,17,74,936/- under Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11A.

2. Rallison Electricals Pvt Ltd vs Principal Commissioner, Cgst-Alwar

Bench: Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Date: 21 April 2026
Sections engaged: 11A, 11A(4), 240, 9D
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: This appeal (Excise Appeal No. 51613 of 2022, Final Order No. 50752/2026) challenged that portion of Order-in-Original No. ALW-EXCUS-000-069-071-21-22 dated 11.02.2022 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax, Commissionerate, Alwar, which confirmed a demand for CENVAT credit and ordered its recovery under Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11A(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, with interest and penalties. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of electrical wires and cables; the matter proceeded to hearing on 12.02.2026 and a decision was issued on 21.04.2026.

3. Nishant Organic Pvt Ltd vs Vadodara-I

Bench: Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Date: 7 April 2026
Sections engaged: 11A, 4(3)(c)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: This appeal (Excise Appeal No. 10505 of 2020-DB) was filed against Order-in-Appeal OIA-VAD-EXCUS-001-AAP-558-2019-20 dated 20/03/2020 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), CGST & Central Excise, Vadodara, which had rejected the appellant's appeal and upheld the decision of the lower authority. Per the source preview, the appellant cited several precedents in support of its grounds, and the present appeal before the Tribunal followed the dismissal at the Commissioner (Appeals) level.

4. M/S Rashtriya Chem. And Fer. Ltd vs Comm. Of Central Ex. And Serv. Tax(Ltu)

Bench: Supreme Court of India
Date: 24 March 2026
Sections engaged: 11A, 35C(2)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: This matter (Civil Appeal Nos. 2219-20 of 2013 and Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 21441 of 2013, reported as 2026 INSC 285) involved three inter-connected civil appeals that were heard together and disposed of by a common judgment and order. Per the source preview, Civil Appeal No. 2219 of 2013 arose from an order dated 27.03.2012 passed by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench, Mumbai in Appeal No. E/671/10-Mum, and Civil Appeal No. 2220 of 2013 was preferred against the same CESTAT final order in Appeal No. E/801/10-Mum, with the original adjudication having been passed on 27.01.2010 by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax.

5. Global Opportunities Private Limited vs Additional Director General

Bench: Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Date: 18 March 2026
Sections engaged: 11A, 13(2), 13(8), 73, 78
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: This appeal (Service Tax Appeal No. 52116 of 2022) arose from Order-in-Original No. 41/2022-ST dated 10.06.2022 passed by the Principal Commissioner, Additional Director General (Adjudication), New Delhi. Per the source preview, officers of DGGI initiated enquiry on the grounds that service tax was not paid on commission received from foreign universities/institutions for arranging/facilitating enrolment of students from India; a show cause notice dated 22.04.2020 was thereafter issued to the appellant demanding service tax and proposing penalties by invoking the extended period, and the appellant had deposited service tax, interest and 15% as penalty prior to issuance of the notice in respect of services provided within India.

6. Cgst & Central Excise Rajkot vs Metal Alloys Corporation

Bench: Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Date: 13 March 2026
Sections engaged: 11A, 11A(4), 5A
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: This departmental appeal (Excise Appeal No. 11061 of 2019-DB) was filed against Order-in-Appeal OIA-RAJ-EXCUS-000-APP-018-2019 dated 19/03/2019 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), CGST & Central Excise, Rajkot. Per the source preview, the show cause notice proposed recovery of Rs. 91,97,469/- at 6%/7% of the value of exempted goods/exempted services under Rule 6(3) of the CCR, 2004 read with Rule 14 of the CCR, 2004 and Section 11A(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, along with interest and penalty; the adjudicating authority had noted that the respondent had reversed proportionate CENVAT Credit of Rs. 1,09,181/- along with interest of Rs. 60,157/- on 07.07.2017 on LPG which is a common input used for manufacture of dutiable as well as exempted goods.

7. Good Year India Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Goods &

Bench: Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Date: 17 February 2026
Sections engaged: 11A
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: This appeal (Excise Appeal No. 53263 of 2015) arose from Order-in-Original No. 07/KKK/COMMR/ADJN/FBD-I/2015-16 dated 16.06.2015 passed by the Pr. Commissioner, C. EX. & S.T., Faridabad-I. Per the source preview, the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of tyres and during the relevant period, i.e. 2013-2014, availed CENVAT Credit of service tax paid on input services including C&F Agents (Rs. 33,35,634/-), Renting of Office/Godown (Rs. 20,27,615/-), and AMC of computers and air conditioners (Rs. 35,874/-), totalling Rs. 53,99,123/-; the department alleged that this CENVAT Credit was wrongly availed.

8. Remco Paper & Board Industries Limited vs Daman

Bench: Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Date: 13 February 2026
Sections engaged: 11A
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: This matter involved two cross-appeals — Excise Appeal No. 1004 of 2010 and Excise Appeal No. 1281 of 2010 — both arising from Order-in-Original OIO-06&07/DEM/DAMAN/2010 dated 31/03/2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Daman. Per the source preview, the department had issued two show cause notices dated 05.08.2008 and 07.11.2008 proposing recovery of defaulted duty, confiscation of goods cleared during the violation period, and imposition of penalty, and the Commissioner confirmed the Central Excise demand vide the impugned order dated 31.03.2010.

9. Ruchi Power & Steel Industries Ltd vs Rajkot

Bench: Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Date: 12 February 2026
Sections engaged: 11A, 20, 22
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: This appeal (Excise Appeal No. 742 of 2012-DB) arose from Order-in-Appeal OIA-719/2012/COMMR-A-/RBT/RAJ dated 07/08/2012 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) of Central Excise, Customs, Rajkot. Per the source preview, learned Advocate for the appellant argued during hearing that the issue had already been decided by the Gujarat High Court in the case of Indsur Global Ltd Vs. UOI reported at 2014 (310) ELT 833 (Guj.), wherein Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was held to be ultra vires, and consequently the demand confirmed by the lower authorities and the penalty of equal amount imposed were submitted to be not sustainable.

10. Jindal Stainless Ltd vs C.C.E. Rohtak

Bench: Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Date: 3 February 2026
Sections engaged: 11A
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: This appeal (Excise Appeal No. 587 of 2006, Final Order No. 60126/2026) arose from Order-in-Original No. 27-30/Commr/RP/2005 dated 30.11.2005 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Rohtak; the matter was heard on 09.10.2025 and decided on 03.02.2026. Per the source preview, the appellant is a manufacturer of slabs, blooms, and ingots who established a captive power plant with DG Sets to generate electricity and entered into several agreements during the period 1987–1996 with Haryana State Electricity Board (HSEB) to synchronize power with the grid and receive back an equivalent power from the grid.

11. M/S Sheela Foam Ltd vs Noida

Bench: Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Date: 2 February 2026
Sections engaged: 11A, 11B, 11B(2), 11D
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: This appeal (Excise Appeal No. 70686 of 2025, Final Order No. 70027/2026) was directed against Order-in-Appeal No. NOI-CGST-002-APPL-48-2025-26 dated 26/05/2025 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), CGST, Noida; it was heard on 11.11.2025 and decided on 02.02.2026. Per the source preview, the Commissioner (Appeals) had held that interest at the prescribed rate under Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was eligible to the appellant on an amount of Rs. 35,60,087/- from the date of deposit to the date of actual refund, and the present appeal appears to have been filed in connection with that refund-related determination.

12. Vahini Irrigation Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Tax, Bangalore

Bench: Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Date: 9 January 2026
Sections engaged: 11A
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: This appeal (Central Excise Appeal No. 20202 of 2018) arose from Order-in-Appeal No. 253/2017 CT dated 20.09.2017 passed by the Commissioner of Central Tax (Appeals - II), Bangalore. Per the source preview, the core issue was whether availment of CENVAT credit of service tax paid on a licence for providing courier service was tenable; the appellant, a manufacturer of PVC pipes, had entered into an agreement with M/s. KSRTC for transporting parcels/goods and operating courier services through KSRTC buses, and had paid an amount of Rs. 1,51,11,739/- as licence fee including service tax of Rs. 25,80,768/-.

Patterns across these 12 rulings

CENVAT credit recovery as the dominant dispute type. Across a significant number of these rulings — including Cases 1, 2, 6, 7, and 12 — the substantive dispute centres on whether CENVAT credit was wrongly availed and is recoverable under Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11A. The section functions primarily as the recovery vehicle in CENVAT credit proceedings rather than as a standalone duty-demand provision in this set.
Prevalence of extended-period show cause notices. Case 5 (Global Opportunities) expressly references invocation of the extended period in the show cause notice. The pattern of extended-period invocations is a recurring procedural feature in central excise and service tax demand proceedings, and researchers should check each full judgment for findings on whether the extended period was validly invoked.
Cross-bench geographic spread with a common statutory anchor. The twelve rulings span CESTAT benches at Chennai, New Delhi (Principal Bench), Ahmedabad (West Zonal), Chandigarh, Allahabad, and Bangalore, as well as the Supreme Court — reflecting that Section 11A demand recovery disputes arise uniformly across all excise commissionerates in India, with no apparent geographic concentration.
Supreme Court involvement in a long-standing matter. Case 4 (Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd, 2026 INSC 285) demonstrates that Section 11A proceedings can escalate to the Supreme Court via civil appeals and special leave petitions, with the three inter-connected appeals in that matter having originated from CESTAT orders passed in 2012 and an original order passed in 2010.
Refund and interest proceedings as a secondary theme. Case 11 (Sheela Foam Ltd) involves a refund and interest-on-refund determination rather than a demand for recovery, illustrating that Section 11A proceedings can also arise in a refund context and are not confined to demand-side recovery disputes.

How to use this compilation

This compilation is organised as a research index and is not exhaustive of all Section 11A rulings decided in the relevant period. Researchers should treat each entry as a signpost to the full judgment rather than a self-contained summary. The text previews on which the procedural notes above are based are extracts only and may not capture the dispositive holding, which will appear in the full final order. Before relying on any ruling, obtain and read the complete judgment from indiankanoon.org, the official CESTAT portal, or the Supreme Court's SCI website, and verify whether the order has been appealed, stayed, or reversed at a higher forum.

Because all twelve cases arise under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (and the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 in several instances), researchers should also cross-check current CBIC circulars and instructions on CENVAT credit verification and demand issuance, particularly given the transition to the GST regime from July 2017 onwards — legacy central excise demands for periods prior to that date continue to be adjudicated and litigated under the old law.

Finally, note that the "Outcome not specified in source" designation across all twelve entries reflects the limits of the structured data extract, not a substantive finding that all appeals were disposed of without a clear result. Researchers must consult the final orders directly to determine whether each appeal was allowed, dismissed, or remanded, and whether any monetary recovery or relief was confirmed or set aside.

Source

All cases listed above are drawn from the TaxNoticeAI structured legal corpus (16,101 Indian tax judgments, CBIC circulars, ITAT rulings, AAR rulings, GSTAT rulings), sourced from indiankanoon.org and official court portals.

Section 11A Central Excise Act: 12 CESTAT & Supreme Court Rulings (2026)