CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD REGIONAL BENCH, COURT NO. 2 EXCISE APPEAL NO. 10632 OF 2020 [Arising out of OIA-AHM-EXCUS-001-APP-02-2020-21 dated 27.04.2020 issued on 12/06/2020 passed by Commissioner ( Appeals ) Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax-AHMEDABAD]

SHRI KRISHNA KESHAV LABORATORIES LTD Appellant Nr. Yogeshwar Estate, B/H Torrent Power Ltd, Amaraiwadi Road, Ahmedabad, Gujarat Vs.

COMMISSIONER (Appeals) CGST, AHMEDABAD Respondent

7^th Floor, Central GST, Bhavan, Revenue Marg, Ambawadi, Ahmedabd-15 Appearance:

Shri Vikas Mehta, Consultant for the Appellant Shri Sunita Menon, Superintendent (AR) for the Respondent CORAM:

HON'BLE Dr. AJAYA KRISHNA VISHVESHA, MEMBER ( JUDICIAL )

FINAL ORDER NO. 10238/2026 Date of Hearing : 19.01.2026 Date of Decision : 01.04.2026 Dr. AJAYA KRISHNA VISHVESHA This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 27^th April, 2020 issued on 12.06.2020, passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) through which the learned Commissioner rejected the appeal of the appellant and upheld the Order-in-Original dated 23^rd 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 27^th 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, Rs. 3,86,788/- as interest and Rs. 2,35,925/- as penalty. Appellants claimed that they had paid the above mentioned amount twice i.e. first time by debiting from Cenvat account throughout the period involved in the claim and second time by making payment through cash, as pointed out by Central Excise Audit at the time when audit was carried out in respect of their unit. It was also reflected from their refund claim that the appellant was availing benefit of Notification No. 01/2011-CE dated 1^st March, 2011, as amended, for making payment of Central Excise Duty at the relevant time. The department was of the view that the claimant had filed the E.R.-1 for the month of March-2017 on 8^th April, 2017 whereas they have filed the refund claim with the department on 27^th May, 2019 i.e. after one year from the filing of E.R.-1 return. Therefore, the refund claim appeared to be hit by the limitation, prescribed in Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 142(3) of the CGST Act, 2017. The department was also of the view that the appellant has not paid the amount of duty under protest nor produced the documents which may prove that the amount of duty was deposited under protest.

1.2 In these circumstances, Show Cause Notice was issued to the appellant. The appellant submitted their reply against the Show Cause Notice. The learned Deputy Commissioner CGST Division-1 Ahmedabad South, after giving opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant, passed Order-in-Original dated 23^rd 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 27^th April, 2020, rejected the appeal of the appellant and uph