This compilation indexes twelve rulings — spanning CESTAT benches across India and five High Courts — in which Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was engaged, either as the primary provision governing refund claims or alongside related sections such as Section 11A, Section 35G, and Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. The rulings cover the period December 2025 to September 2026 and arise from disputes involving excess duty payments, refund rejections, limitation periods, and ancillary procedural questions. This index is intended for indirect-tax researchers, in-house tax teams, and Big-4 associates tracking the trajectory of refund jurisprudence under the pre-GST statutory framework.

Research index only. This page catalogues publicly available tribunal and court orders for reference purposes. Nothing on this page constitutes legal or tax advice. Always verify the full text of each judgment and check for subsequent stays, appeals, or reversals before relying on any ruling.

The statutory framework in one paragraph

Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 provides the statutory mechanism for claiming refund of any duty of excise paid by an assessee. The provision prescribes the manner of filing a refund application, stipulates the limitation period within which such claim must be preferred, and sets out conditions — including the doctrine of unjust enrichment — that must be satisfied before a refund can be sanctioned. Where duty has been collected from buyers and has not been returned to them, the refund, if granted, is ordinarily credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund rather than paid to the applicant. The section has been a central provision in the indirect-tax landscape for decades and continues to be litigated extensively in CESTAT and the High Courts in the context of service tax, central excise duty, and related transitional matters in the post-GST period.

The 12 rulings

1. Empire Industries Limited vs Union Of India

Bench: Bombay High Court
Date: 7 September 2026
Sections engaged: 11B, 11B(1), 83
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal was filed before the Bombay High Court as Writ Petition No. 3460 of 2026, with Empire Industries Limited as petitioner and Union of India along with two CGST / Central Excise authorities as respondents. Per the source preview, the petition was reserved on 2nd September 2026 and pronounced on 7th September 2026, and the court recorded that the petition is allowed and the order dated 24th March 2026 was the subject of challenge; the full reasoning is not available in the source preview.

2. Lohia Starlinger Ltd vs Kanpur

Bench: Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Date: 8 May 2026
Sections engaged: 11B
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: This is Excise Appeal No. 83 of 2009 before the CESTAT Allahabad Regional Bench, arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 363-CE/APPL/KNP/2008 dated 30.09.2008 of the Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise, Kanpur. Per the source preview, the impugned order dismissed the appellant's appeal against a refund memorandum of the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise Division-II Kanpur, and a Service Tax Demand of Rs. 25,10,324/- for the period 09.07.2004 to 30.09.2005 had been confirmed along with penalty in the underlying order-in-original.

3. Virchow Laboratories Limited vs The Commissioner Of Customs And

Bench: Telangana High Court
Date: 26 March 2026
Sections engaged: 11B, 35G
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal, being CEA No. 195 of 2011, was filed before the Telangana High Court against common final order Nos. 576 & 577/2011 dated 17.08.2011 passed by the CESTAT South Zone Bench at Bangalore in Appeal No. E/1124/2006. Per the source preview, the appellant — a manufacturer and exporter of bulk drugs — had been directed by the jurisdictional Central Excise Superintendent in January 1997 to pay Rs. 31,52,256/- on the basis of an alleged violation of Customs Notification No. 203/92, and, under threat of stoppage of export clearances, deposited the said amount under protest on 31.01.1997; a refund claim was subsequently filed on the ground that no legal liability to pay the amount existed.

4. Mccann Erickson (India) Pvt Ltd vs Delhi East

Bench: Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Date: 20 March 2026
Sections engaged: 11B
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: Service Tax Appeal No. 52352 of 2024 was filed before the CESTAT Principal Bench, New Delhi, arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 112/ST/DLH/2024 dated 24.06.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Central Tax (Appeal-I), New Delhi. Per the source preview, the appellant had paid service tax in excess of the amount required, including excess cash payments of Rs. 23,30,533/- in March and April 2017 that were not adjusted against future liabilities; a refund application in Form R dated 09.01.2020 for Rs. 2,93,72,118/- was filed, and the department rejected it on the ground that the refund claim was time-barred and that the appellant had not submitted documents to establish non-utilisation of the excess tax paid.

5. M/S Ambika Solvex Ltd vs The Commissioner

Bench: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Date: 18 March 2026
Sections engaged: 11B
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: Central Excise Appeal No. 55 of 2018 arose before the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur out of a CESTAT New Delhi order that had partly dismissed the appellant's appeal on the issue of limitation concerning a refund of service tax. Per the source preview, during the period from 04.09.2012 to 05.01.2016, the appellant had paid service tax of approximately Rs. 5,51,397/- under the reverse charge mechanism on GTA services, which were subsequently found to be exempt from service tax under a relevant notification dated 20.06.2012 covering transportation of agricultural produce and related goods; the payment was thus made under a mistake of fact and law as no legal liability existed.

6. Ms Ishan Snax Private Limited vs Siliguri

Bench: Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Date: 18 February 2026
Sections engaged: 142, 11B
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: Excise Appeal No. 76204 of 2024 was filed before the CESTAT Eastern Zonal Bench, Kolkata, arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 22/SLG-CE/2024-25 dated 20.06.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Appeals, Siliguri Commissionerate. Per the source preview, the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of extruded snacks and potato chips and had, during the pre-GST regime, imported capital goods under the EPCG (Export Promotion Capital Goods) Scheme, with installation of such capital goods duly certified by the jurisdictional Central Excise authorities; the appeal relates to a subsequent dispute arising from non-fulfilment of conditions under that scheme, though the full substantive reasoning is not available in the source preview.

7. M/S Sheela Foam Ltd vs Noida

Bench: Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Date: 2 February 2026
Sections engaged: 11B, 11B(2)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: Excise Appeal No. 70686 of 2025 was directed against Order-in-Appeal No. NOI-CGST-002-APPL-48-2025-26 dated 26.05.2025 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), CGST, Noida, before the CESTAT Allahabad Regional Bench. Per the source preview, the impugned order had held that interest at the prescribed rate under Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is eligible to the appellant on an amount of Rs. 35,60,087/- from the date of deposit to the date of actual refund; the present appeal appears to arise from a further dispute regarding the scope or quantum of that interest entitlement.

8. M/S.Larsen And Toubro Ltd vs The Revisionary Authority And

Bench: Madras High Court
Date: 23 January 2026
Sections engaged: 11B
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: WP No. 15887 of 2022 was filed before the Madras High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash Order No. 323/2021-CX(SZ)/ASRA/Mumbai dated 24.09.2021 passed by the Revisionary Authority, insofar as it upheld the rejection of the rebate claim filed by the petitioner. Per the source preview, the petitioner sought a direction to sanction the rebate claim or to re-credit the duty paid on exported goods back into its Electronic Credit Ledger; the full grounds of the challenge are not available in the source preview.

9. Inventys Research Co. Pvt. Ltd vs The Commissioner Of Central Tax And

Bench: Bombay High Court
Date: 23 January 2026
Sections engaged: 11B
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: Central Excise Appeal No. 1/2024 was filed before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, and was admitted on a substantial question of law. Per the source preview, the appellant is a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU) and during the period from October 2009 to September 2010 supplied goods to another 100% EOU; refund claims for multiple quarters during this period — totalling amounts across four quarters (October–December 2009, January–March 2010, April–June 2010, and July–September 2010) — form the subject matter of the dispute, though the full reasoning on the substantial question admitted is not available in the source preview.

10. Tvs Motor Company Ltd vs Salem

Bench: Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Date: 20 January 2026
Sections engaged: 11B
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: Service Tax Appeal No. 40198 of 2016 was filed before the CESTAT Chennai Regional Bench against Order-in-Appeal No. 229/2015 (CXA-I) dated 28.10.2015 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-I), Chennai. Per the source preview, the appellant — a manufacturer of motorcycles and mopeds and also a registered service provider — had remitted service tax during 2002-03 and 2003-04 (November 2002 to November 2003) for technical consultancy services provided by foreign service providers, including for services rendered outside India; the amount of tax remitted for services provided outside India during that period amounts to Rs. 41,19,987/-, which the appellant subsequently adjusted towards its service tax liability for the period November 2003 to September 2004 in terms of Rule 6(3) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994.

11. Commissioner Of Central Excise Bolpur vs M/S. Steel Authority Of India Limited

Bench: Calcutta High Court
Date: 22 December 2025
Sections engaged: 11A, 11B
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: CEXA 31 of 2024 (with IA No. GA 2 of 2024) was filed before the Calcutta High Court. Per the source preview, a penalty of Rs. 15,66,48,557/- had been imposed on the assessee under Section 11AC read with applicable Central Excise Rules, and the Tribunal by its order dated June 11, 2007 set aside the penalty but left the duty demand intact; pursuant to that order, the assessee deposited duty of Rs. 14,50,50,502/- and thereafter filed a refund claim for Rs. 15,66,48,547/-. The Assistant Commissioner, Durgapur-IV Division, by order dated June 23, 2008, rejected the refund on the ground that the duty demand under the order-in-original dated March 31, 2006 had attained finality and could not be indirectly assailed through a refund claim.

12. The Commissioner, Cgst And Central vs Aegis Limited

Bench: Gujarat High Court
Date: 3 December 2025
Sections engaged: 11B, 83
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: R/Tax Appeal No. 85 of 2025 was filed before the Gujarat High Court at Ahmedabad by the Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise Commissionerate, Surat. Per the source preview, the court found that no substantial questions of law worth the name arose in view of facts admitted by the appellant before the CESTAT West Zonal Bench, Ahmedabad; the brief facts indicate that the respondent had filed a refund claim of Rs. 4,80,21,610/- with the Assistant Commissioner, Service Tax, Surat-I on 16.11.2011, though the full basis of the refund and the court's disposal are not available in the source preview.

Patterns across these 12 rulings

Limitation is the dominant battleground. Across multiple cases in this set — including Mccann Erickson (India) Pvt Ltd (case 4) and M/S Ambika Solvex Ltd (case 5) — the department's primary basis for rejecting refund claims is that the application was filed beyond the statutory limitation period. The limitation question under the relevant provisions continues to generate sustained litigation at both the tribunal and High Court level.
Payment under compulsion or mistake triggers refund claims. Both Virchow Laboratories Limited (case 3) and M/S Ambika Solvex Ltd (case 5) involve facts where the original payment was made either under coercion/threat (export clearances being stopped) or under a mistake of fact and law (erroneous payment of service tax on an exempt category). Refund claims arising from such involuntary or mistaken payments represent a recurring factual pattern.
Refund claims persist into the post-GST era for pre-GST periods. Several cases — including Lohia Starlinger Ltd (case 2, Excise Appeal No. 83 of 2009), TVS Motor Company Ltd (case 10, Service Tax Appeal No. 40198 of 2016), and Inventys Research Co. Pvt. Ltd (case 9) — involve disputed periods falling well before the GST transition but are still being adjudicated at CESTAT and High Court levels in 2025–2026, reflecting the long tail of legacy indirect-tax litigation.
Interest on delayed refunds is a separate but related ground of dispute. In M/S Sheela Foam Ltd (case 7), the dispute concerns interest on a refund amount — with the Commissioner (Appeals) having already held that interest at the prescribed rate is payable from the date of deposit to the date of actual refund. This signals that once the principal refund entitlement is settled, the quantum and period of interest routinely becomes a fresh flash-point.
Export-related refund and rebate claims form a distinct cluster. Larsen and Toubro Ltd (case 8), Inventys Research Co. Pvt. Ltd (case 9), Virchow Laboratories Limited (case 3), and Ishan Snax Private Limited (case 6) all involve export-linked contexts — including rebate claims on duty paid for exported goods, EOU-to-EOU supply disputes, and EPCG scheme compliance issues — reflecting the complexity of the refund architecture as it applies to export-oriented entities.

How to use this compilation

This index is a starting point for legal research, not a substitute for reading the full text of each judgment. Every ruling listed here should be accessed in its entirety — through indiankanoon.org, the relevant court portal (e.g., mhc.tn.gov.in/judis, the Bombay High Court portal, or the CESTAT order repository), or a verified commercial legal database — before it is cited or relied upon in any submission, memo, or advisory work. The source previews reproduced here are truncated extracts and do not capture the full ratio, the complete facts, or the operative order in most cases.

Researchers should also verify whether any ruling listed here has been stayed, appealed, or reversed by a higher forum. CESTAT orders may be challenged before the relevant High Court by way of a Central Excise Appeal or a writ petition; High Court decisions may be appealed to the Supreme Court by special leave. A ruling that appears final at the date of this compilation may have a subsequent development that materially changes its precedential value. Checking cause lists and subsequent-order indexes on court portals is essential before treating any entry in this compilation as settled law.

Finally, the statutory provisions engaged in these cases — including Section 11B and related provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the Finance Act, 1994 — must be read alongside any applicable CBIC circulars, departmental instructions, and Board orders that may clarify the department's administrative position on refund processing timelines, unjust enrichment verification procedures, and the treatment of refund claims arising from pre-GST periods. Those instruments are not captured in this case-law index but form an essential part of the complete research picture.

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 11B Central Excise & Service Tax Refund Claims: 12 Rulings (2025–2026)