The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal has clarified that a taxpayer who voluntarily reverses Cenvat Credit under audit pressure, but later discovers the reversal was legally unwarranted due to a clarificatory circular, is entitled to a refund. The Tribunal emphasized that adjudicating authorities cannot decide on grounds not raised in the show cause notice, reinforcing foundational principles of natural justice.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
M/s Aryan Packaging Industries, a packaging manufacturer based in Vapi, Gujarat, availed Cenvat Credit of service tax amounting to Rs. 2,45,544 on outward freight charges incurred during the financial years 2016-17 and 2017-18 (up to June 2017). The department’s audit team objected to this credit, asserting that outward transportation did not qualify as an "Input Service" under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Under pressure from the audit objection, the appellant reversed the credit and paid Rs. 2,45,544 as duty along with interest of Rs. 39,329 on 15.05.2018. It filed a declaration under Section 11A(2B) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, seeking settlement of the matter without issuance of a show cause notice.
Key Facts
- The appellant availed Cenvat Credit of service tax on outward freight from 01.04.2016 to 30.06.2017
- Audit objection raised in EA 2000 cycle led to reversal of Rs. 2,45,544 on 15.05.2018
- Interest of Rs. 39,329 was paid concurrently
- On 08.06.2018, CBIC issued Circular No. 1065/4/2018-CX, clarifying that Cenvat Credit on outward freight is admissible if the sale contract is on FOR basis
- The appellant filed a refund claim for Rs. 2,84,873 (credit + interest) on 10.07.2019
- Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner rejected the refund on 25.11.2020, citing Section 11A(2B) as barring reopening
- Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection on 07.01.2021
- Appeal filed before CESTAT on 22.03.2021
Procedural History
- 15.05.2018: Appellant reversed Cenvat Credit of Rs. 2,45,544 and paid interest of Rs. 39,329
- 08.06.2018: CBIC Circular No. 1065/4/2018-CX issued, validating Cenvat Credit on outward freight
- 10.07.2019: Refund claim filed for Rs. 2,84,873
- 17.06.2019: Show cause notice issued for rejection of refund, citing "no provision for refund under Central Excise Act"
- 25.11.2020: Assistant Commissioner rejected refund, holding that Section 11A(2B) barred reopening
- 07.01.2021: Commissioner (Appeals) affirmed rejection
- 22.03.2021: Appeal filed before CESTAT
- 13.03.2026: Hearing held
- 30.04.2026: Final Order passed
The Parties' Positions
For the Appellant
- Argued that the reversal was voluntary and made under audit pressure, not due to legal liability
- Relied on CBIC Circular dated 08.06.2018, which validated the credit post-reversal
- Cited State of West Bengal v. Suresh Chandra Bose, Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Auraiya Chamber of Commerce, and Parle Products Ltd. v. Union of India to establish that money paid under mistake of law is refundable
- Invoked Clariant (I) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise and NSP Electronics Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise to support refund of voluntary payments
- Contended that the show cause notice did not raise the issue of Section 11A(2B) barring refund
For the Respondent
- Argued that Section 11A(2B) operates as a conclusive settlement mechanism
- Relied on Saroj Engineers v. CCE, Kolhapur to assert that once a declaration is filed under Section 11A(2B), the matter cannot be reopened
- Distinguished Clariant and NSP Electronics on grounds of factual differences
- Maintained that the refund claim was barred by the finality of settlement
Relief Sought
The appellant sought:
- Refund of Rs. 2,45,544 as wrongly reversed Cenvat Credit
- Refund of Rs. 39,329 as interest paid on the reversed credit
- Setting aside of the orders dated 25.11.2020 and 07.01.2021
- Direction to the Assistant Commissioner to process the refund claim
The Legal Issue
Can a taxpayer claim refund of Cenvat Credit voluntarily reversed under audit pressure, when a subsequent circular validates the credit, and the department’s rejection is based on grounds not raised in the show cause notice?
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The appellant relied on multiple precedents to establish that money paid under a mistake of law is recoverable under Section 72 of the Indian Contract Act. It emphasized that the reversal was not an admission of liability but a pragmatic response to audit pressure. The appellant highlighted that the CBIC Circular dated 08.06.2018 retrospectively validated the credit, rendering the reversal legally unjustified. It further argued that the show cause notice only cited the absence of a refund provision under the Act, and the adjudicating authority improperly introduced Section 11A(2B) as a bar to refund - a ground never raised in the notice. The appellant cited Toyo Engineering, Champdany Industries, and Shital International to reinforce that adjudication beyond the scope of the show cause notice violates natural justice.
For the Respondent
The department contended that Section 11A(2B) creates a conclusive settlement, precluding any subsequent claim for refund. It relied on Saroj Engineers to argue that once an assessee opts for settlement under this provision, the matter is closed on merits. It dismissed the applicability of Clariant and NSP Electronics, asserting those cases involved different factual matrices where no settlement was invoked. The department maintained that the refund claim was time-barred and that the appellant had effectively waived its rights by accepting the settlement.
The Court's Analysis
The Tribunal conducted a two-pronged analysis: first, on procedural irregularity; second, on substantive entitlement.
On the procedural front, the Tribunal found that the show cause notice dated 17.06.2019 only stated that "there is no provision for refund under the Central Excise Act." It did not invoke Section 11A(2B) as a bar to refund, nor did it allege that the reversal was a conclusive settlement. Yet, the Assistant Commissioner and Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the refund on precisely that ground. The Tribunal held this to be a clear violation of the principles of natural justice.
"The Revenue cannot travel beyond the show cause notice. Even in the grounds of appeals these points have not been taken."
The Tribunal cited Toyo Engineering, Champdany Industries, and Shital International to affirm that an adjudicating authority cannot introduce new grounds for denial that were not part of the notice. The appellant was denied the opportunity to address the Section 11A(2B) argument, which fundamentally altered the nature of the case.
On the merits, the Tribunal noted that the CBIC Circular dated 08.06.2018 explicitly permitted Cenvat Credit on outward freight under FOR contracts. The reversal occurred on 15.05.2018, just weeks before the circular’s issuance. The appellant had no reason to believe the credit was ineligible at the time of reversal. The Tribunal held that the reversal was not a voluntary payment made with full knowledge of legal liability, but a reactive measure under audit pressure. Therefore, the payment of duty and interest was made under a mistake of law, and recovery was permissible under Parle Products and Clariant.
The Tribunal further distinguished Saroj Engineers, noting that in that case, the assessee had admitted liability and settled without contesting the merits. Here, the appellant never admitted liability; it merely complied with audit pressure. The circular later confirmed the credit was lawful.
The Verdict
The appeal is allowed. The orders dated 25.11.2020 and 07.01.2021 are set aside. The jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner is directed to sanction the refund of Rs. 2,45,544 as Cenvat Credit and Rs. 39,329 as interest, within 8 weeks from the date of this order. The refund shall be processed without any further conditions or procedural hurdles.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Settlement Under Section 11A(2B) Does Not Bar Refund for Mistaken Reversals
- Practitioners may now argue that voluntary reversals made under audit pressure, before clarificatory circulars, are not conclusive settlements
- A declaration under Section 11A(2B) does not extinguish the right to refund if the underlying liability is later found to be non-existent
- The key distinction lies in whether the assessee admitted liability or merely complied with audit demands
Adjudication Beyond Show Cause Notice Is Void
-
Revenue authorities must strictly adhere to the grounds raised in the show cause notice
-
New grounds introduced during adjudication, even if legally valid, render the order void for violating natural justice
-
Practitioners should challenge any order that introduces a new legal basis not mentioned in the notice, regardless of its merit
-
Always cross-check the show cause notice against the final order for unraised grounds
-
File objections at the earliest stage if new grounds appear in the order
-
Cite Toyo Engineering and Champdany Industries to reinforce the principle of procedural fairness
-
Refund claims based on post-payment circulars are now legally tenable if reversal was not a conscious admission of liability
-
Maintain documentary evidence of audit pressure and timing of circular issuance to support claims
-
This judgment strengthens the position of taxpayers who act in good faith and rely on evolving departmental guidance
