ACC Limited Vs Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise (CESTAT Chandigarh)
The appeals were filed by ACC Ltd. and Ambuja Cements Ltd. against orders dated 29.04.2025 upholding Orders-in-Original dated 26.12.2024 and 27.11.2024, whereby the refund granted pursuant to the Tribunal’s Final Order dated 01.07.2024 was reduced by increasing the deduction on account of CENVAT credit availed on clinker manufactured and captively consumed. Since the factual matrix was identical, both appeals were heard together.
The appellants had availed exemption under Notification No. 50/2003-CE while manufacturing cement and also manufactured clinker, part of which was captively consumed. Following the Supreme Court’s order dated 21.08.2015 holding that the appellants were entitled to exemption under Notification No. 67/95-CE on captively consumed clinker, refund claims were sanctioned in 2016. However, the sanctioned amounts were credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund on the ground of unjust enrichment after deducting specified amounts of CENVAT credit. The Tribunal, by Final Order dated 01.07.2024, held that the amounts deposited were in the nature of pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, that unjust enrichment was inapplicable, and that the refunds already sanctioned but credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund were payable to the appellants.
The appellants contended that the refund quantified in the 2016 Orders-in-Original had attained finality as the Revenue had not challenged those orders. They submitted that the Assistant Commissioner, while implementing the Tribunal’s order, impermissibly re-opened the refund quantification by increasing the deduction of CENVAT credit. They argued that the Tribunal’s earlier order only clarified that the CENVAT credit already deducted would not be refundable and did not authorize re-quantification. They also submitted that if the department disputed the admissibility of CENVAT credit, it was free to recover it in accordance with law, but not by reducing the refund already quantified. Reliance was placed on Nokia India Sales P. Ltd. v. CC and other decisions.
