Order date – 13 September 2022

Facts – 

• The Appellant, M/s. Steel Authority of India Limited, had sold goods (blooms) to its customers, Rail Wheel Factory, Yelanhanka, Bangalore in the month of April 2012 amounting to Rs.24,85,746/- against two invoices dated 28.03.2018 whereby the Appellant erroneously calculated Central Excise duty @ 10.30% instead of 12.36% which was discharged as excise duty in the month of March 2012.
• On realizing the bona fide mistake, the Appellant issued two supplementary invoices on 30.04.2012 with an objective to recover the differential duty @ 2.06%, however, the Appellant once again paid the entire amount of excise duty @ 12.36% vide debit from Cenvat Credit Register as excise duty for the month of April 2012.
• Therefore, instead of discharging differential duty @2.06% the Appellant made excess deposit of Central Excise duty amounting to Rs.5,04,393/. Accordingly, Appellant filed refund of the same.
• Show Cause Notice dated 05.07.2013 was issued alleging that, Appellant did not comply with the conditions laid down under Sub-Section 2(d) of the Section 11B of the Act and did not discharge the burden of proving contrary to presumption under Section 12B of the Act and such amount is proposed to be credited to Consumer Welfare Fund under Section 11B (2) of the Act.
• The authority held that the refund claim is liable to be rejected in terms of Section 12B of CEA, 1944 and credited to Consumer Welfare Fund under sub-section (2) of Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944.
• Aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal.

Issue – 

• Whether the appellant’s refund claim is liable to be rejected in terms of Section 12B of CEA, 1944 and credited to Consumer Welfare Fund under sub-section (2) of Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944?

Order – 

• The Tribunal observed that the Appellant had erroneously paid Central Excise duty @10.3% instead of discharging duty @12.36% while issuing the original invoice dated 28.03.2012. On realizing the mistake the Appellant issued supplementary invoices on 30.04.2012 with an objective to recover duty @ 2.06% (12.36% – 10.3%). However, the Appellant once again paid the entire excise duty @ 12.36% instead of discharging the differential duty @ 2.06%, resulting in excess deposit of Central Excise duty amounting to Rs.5,06,393/-.
• The Appellant also filed Chartered Accountant’s Certificate before the authorities which was not disputed by the revenue.
• It is settled law that if the assessee has not received the amount from the buyers, it cannot be held, that the Appellant will be unjustly enriched. It was found that the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Mhatre Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C.Ex., Belapur and the Judgement of the High Court of Madras in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Pondicherry Vs. Southern Agrifurne Industries Ltd in which it was held that once there is no case of unjust enrichment the refund claim ought to be allowed to the Appellant.
• The impugned order is set aside and the Appeal is allowed with consequential relief as per law.