9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 434X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er crediting the said sum to Consumer Welfare Fund. Therefore, the only option left under the said provision of the Act is to pay the same to the claimant. Since Revenue has rejected refund claim after finding that the said sum was paid in excess of due, it is noted that there is no such provision in Section 11B to reject the claim of refund when it is found that the duty paid is in excess of due duty and, therefore, the impugned order is erroneous - in the present case, since the sum was not credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund, under the said provisions of Section 11B ibid, the only other option is to pay the same to the claimant who is presently the appellant in this case. The Assistant/Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Cha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion Corporation Ltd. at enhanced price and also paid excise duty on enhanced price. Subsequently, on 20.02.2013, appellant filed claim for refund of Rs.20,82,895/- stating that they had excess paid central excise duty on coal during the said period and the receiver of coal has not claimed any refund of such higher central excise duty nor has claimed any benefit of Cenvat credit. They have also submitted a copy of Credit Note issued to the buyer extending credit of Rs.20,82,895/- to the buyer and the said Credit Note was issued by the appellant on 15.02.2013. Appellant was issued with a show cause notice dated 17.04.2013 calling upon the appellant to show cause as to why refund claimed by the appellant should not be rejected under Section 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 017 in the case of South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. vs. CCE, Bhopal and the matter was remanded to original authority. He has submitted that in compliance of final order No. 86518/2017 dated 07.09.2017 (supra), the original authority, Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise CGST, Division Katni, has sanctioned refund to South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. He has submitted that on similar lines, the appellant was also entitled for refund applied for. 3. Learned AR for Revenue has submitted that the appellant was called to produce cost sheet of the cost of production of electricity and by the purchaser of the goods and the same was not submitted by the appellant. He has further agreed that rejection of claim through order-in-original is not sustain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... excise [and interest, if any, paid on such duty] in relation to which such refund is claimed was collected from, or paid by, him and the incidence of such duty [and interest, if any, paid on such duty] had not been passed on by him to any other person : Provided that where an application for refund has been made before the commencement of the Central Excises and Customs Laws (Amendment) Act, 1991, such application shall be deemed to have been made under this sub-section as amended by the said Act and the same shall be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2) as substituted by that Act :] Provided [further] that the limitation of [one year] shall not apply where any duty [and interest, if any, paid on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terest, if any, paid on such duty] to any other person; (e) the duty of excise [and interest, if any, paid on such duty] borne by the buyer, if he had not passed on the incidence of such duty [and interest, if any, paid on such duty] to any other person; (f) the duty of excise [and interest, if any, paid on such duty] borne by any other such class of applicants as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify : Provided further that no notification under clause (f) of the first proviso shall be issued unless in the opinion of the Central Government the incidence of duty [and interest, if any, paid on such duty] has not been passed on by the persons concerned to any other person. We ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... und that the duty paid is in excess of due duty and, therefore, the impugned order is erroneous. We set aside the impugned order. As earlier held, we find that in the present case, since the sum was not credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund, in our opinion under the said provisions of Section 11B ibid, the only other option is to pay the same to the claimant who is presently the appellant in this case. We, therefore, allow the appeal and direct Assistant/Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandrapur Division, to pay refund of the claimed amount to the appellant within a period of 30 days from the date of submission of a certified copy of this order by the appellant to the said Assistant/Deputy Commissioner. 5. In above terms, we allo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
