JUDGMENT :

1. This group of petitions arise out of a common background. They have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2835/2021 is treated as a lead case. Facts on record from the said case may be seen. The petitioner is a limited company and is engaged in the business of manufacturing of automobile tyres and tubes falling under Chapter 40 of First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. For the purpose of manufacturing tyres the petitioner would utilise indigenous as well as imported raw materials. In order to avail the benefits of duty free imports the petitioner had obtained advance authorisations and imported goods without payment of duty in terms of notification dated 11.09.2009. For certain locally procured inputs the petitioner would apply and obtain invalidation letters from the Directorate General of Foreign Trade by getting the relevant advance authorisation cancelled for the quantity of goods invalidated.

3. The petitioner made a rebate claim under rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 (for short 'the rules of 2002') for a sum of Rs. 97.74 lacs (rounded off) before the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise. The Assistant Commissioner issued a show-cause notice on 09.02.2015 why such rebate claim should not be rejected. In the show-cause notice it was mentioned that upon examination of claim it appears that petitioner had exported goods and though no valid duty was payable on such exported goods the petitioner paid the duty from inadmissible CENVAT credit availed on the basis of inputs supplied against invalidation letters on payment of duty which was lying in the CENVAT account of assessee. The assessee had thus paid duty deliberately to claim the rebate of the same.

4. The petitioner opposed the show-cause notice. The Assistant Commissioner allowed the rebate accepting the stand of the assessee upon which the department preferred an appeal. Commissioner of Appeals by his order dated 31.10.2017 allowed the appeal. He was of the opinion that in terms of the notification No. 96/2009 of the Customs Department dated 11.09.2009 read with notification No. 44/2001 dated 26.06.2001 read with Foreign Trade policy the advance licence holder is required to export goods without payment of duty. In the present case the petitioner paid the duty though the same was not payable. It was done deliberately to encash the CENVAT credit which may have been built up in the account. The advance licence scheme does not allow such mischief.

5. The petitioner preferred revision petition against the said appellate order. The revisional authority by the impugned order dated 08.01.2020 dismissed the revision petition making following observations:-

"10. The applicant has paid an amount as central excise duty on the export goods from their cenvat account. The said amount does not assume the character of duty as defined under Rule 2 of Central Excise Rules 2002 wherein 'duty' means "the duty payable under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act".

11. CBIC vide circular no. 203/37/96-cx dated 26.04.96 has stated that AR-4 (now ARE-1) value of excisable goods should be determined under Section 4 of Central Excise Act, 1944. Any amount paid in excess of duty liability on one's own volition cannot be treated as duty. It has to be treated simply a voluntary deposit with the Government which is required to be returned to the applicant in the manner, in which it was paid, as the said amount cannot be retained by Government without any authority of law.

Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Nahar Industries Enterprises Limited v. Union of India (2009 (253) ELT 22 (P & H) has held that "Assessee is not entitled to refund thereof in cash regardless of mode of payment of said higher excise duty."

12. Government holds that the applicant is not entitled for rebate under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 on the impugned goods exported under Advance License Scheme in terms of no