Assistant Commissioner must pay excess central excise duty refund under Section 11B(2) when no Consumer Welfare Fund credit order exists

CESTAT Mumbai held that when excess central excise duty is paid and refund is due under Section 11B(2) of CEA, the Assistant/Deputy Commissioner has only two options: credit the sum to Consumer Welfare Fund or pay it to the claimant. Since no order was passed crediting the amount to Consumer Welfare Fund, the only remaining option was to pay the refund to the claimant. The Revenue's rejection of the refund claim was erroneous as Section 11B contains no provision to reject refund when duty is paid in excess. The Assistant/Deputy Commissioner was directed to pay the refund within 30 days. Appeal allowed.

---

---

Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case are the refund of excess central excise duty paid on coal due to a price rollback by Coal India Ltd., rejection of the refund claim by the original authority under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and the appeal filed by the appellant challenging the rejection.

Refund Claim and Rejection:
The appellant, a Public Sector Undertaking engaged in mining coal, paid excess central excise duty during a period when Coal India Ltd. enhanced coal prices and later rolled back the enhancement. The appellant filed a claim for refund of Rs.20,82,895/-, stating that they had overpaid the central excise duty. The original authority rejected the refund claim under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, leading to the appellant's appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner upheld the original authority's decision, prompting the appellant to approach the Tribunal.

Appellant's Argument for Refund:
The appellant's counsel argued that similar circumstances were faced by another subsidiary of Coal India Ltd., South Eastern Coalfields Ltd., where a refund was sanctioned by the authorities. Citing previous tribunal orders, the appellant contended that they were also entitled to a refund as they had overpaid central excise duty.

Revenue's Response and Tribunal's Analysis:
The Revenue's representative acknowledged that the rejection of the claim by the original authority was not sustainable. Upon reviewing the case and relevant provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the Tribunal noted that the original authority had found the appellant had paid excess central excise duty. However, the authority had failed to credit the excess amount to the Consumer Welfare Fund as required by the Act. The Tribunal concluded that since the amount was not credited to the Fund, the only option was to refund it to the appellant. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and directed the Assistant/Deputy Commissioner to pay the refund amount to the appellant within 30 days.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant, directing the refund of the claimed amount of excess central excise duty. The order was pronounced in the open court on 08.02.2024.

---