2013 (11) TMI 1610 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved: Refund of cost recovery charges paid by the appellant post 1-9-2001, interpretation of Section 11B of Central Excise Act, administrative jurisdiction for refund.

In the present case, the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI, comprising Ms. Archana Wadhwa and Shri Rakesh Kumar, addressed the issue of refund of cost recovery charges paid by the appellant after 1-9-2001. The dispute centered around whether such charges were refundable under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act or fell within the administrative jurisdiction of the Commissioner. The Tribunal noted that the lower authorities acknowledged the payment of these charges by the appellants but rejected the refund claim on the basis that it did not qualify as a refund of duty under Section 11B and was under the administrative purview of the Commissioner.

In a similar case, the Tribunal had previously ruled that refund of deposit charges on a cost recovery basis does not fall within the ambit of the Central Excise Act or Customs Act. The Tribunal emphasized that the refund of cost recovery charges is an administrative function, suggesting that the appellant should seek recourse through the jurisdictional Executive Commissioner or the department's administrative machinery for the refund. While concurring with this stance, the Tribunal also highlighted the appellant's option to approach the jurisdictional Commissioner of Central Excise for any refund related to the cost recovery charges.

Based on the precedent set by the Tribunal in the aforementioned case, the current Tribunal concurred with the lower authorities that the refund of cost recovery charges is within the administrative jurisdiction of the Department and does not form the subject matter for appeals before the appellate authorities. However, the Tribunal expressed concern regarding the delay in refunding the cost recovery charges, which were deemed unnecessary for the appellants. The Tribunal urged the administrative machinery of the department to expedite the settlement of the appellant's refund. Consequently, both appeals were resolved in accordance with the above considerations.