Tribunal Upholds Clean Energy Cess Payment Despite Procedural Error

The Tribunal held that despite the wrong quoting of the assessee code while depositing Clean Energy Cess, as long as the duty was paid and credited to the Government account, procedural errors did not invalidate the payment. They set aside the order demanding the duty, interest, and penalty, deeming it excessive and unsupported by law.

---

---

Issues:
1. Wrong quoting of assessee code while depositing Clean Energy Cess.
2. Allegation of non-payment of Clean Energy Cess and proposed penalty.
3. Applicability of CBEC Circular 9/2009.
4. Interpretation of relevant case laws.
5. Validity of payment despite wrong code mention.
6. Decision on the challenge to the impugned order.

Issue 1: Wrong quoting of assessee code while depositing Clean Energy Cess:
The case involved the appellant, M/s. Western Coalfields, depositing Clean Energy Cess on 06.05.2015 but quoting the wrong assessee code. They requested rectification, leading to a Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 4.10.2016 alleging non-payment of Clean Energy Cess and proposing penalties.

Issue 2: Allegation of non-payment of Clean Energy Cess and proposed penalty:
The Commissioner confirmed the duty demanded, imposed penalties under Section 11AC and Rule 12 of CE Rules 2010. The appellant argued that the mistake was not deliberate, citing various cases to support their position.

Issue 3: Applicability of CBEC Circular 9/2009:
The authorized representative contended that the appellant's reliance on CBEC Circular 9/2009 was incorrect, as the cases cited involved Central Excise dues paid in defunct registration codes, not applicable here.

Issue 4: Interpretation of relevant case laws:
The Tribunal analyzed the case laws cited by both parties, emphasizing that the judgments in those cases were delivered in exercise of the Writ jurisdiction.

Issue 5: Validity of payment despite wrong code mention:
The Tribunal noted that the appellant had paid Clean Energy Cess but with the wrong assessee code. They highlighted that the payment was not denied, and the code used pertained to the appellants themselves, leading to a discussion on the validity of the payment despite the error.

Issue 6: Decision on the challenge to the impugned order:
The Tribunal found that as long as the duty was paid and duly credited to the Government account, procedural infractions would not nullify the payment. They concluded that demanding the duty again, along with interest and penalty, was harsh and not supported by law, ultimately setting aside the impugned order.

---