Dept. Can’t Reopen Finalized Refund Quantification by Recalculating Cenvat Credit While Implementing Tribunal Order: CESTAT

The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chandigarh Bench has held that the department cannot reopen finalized refund quantification by recalculating cenvat credit while implementing tribunal order. The bench of S. S. Garg (Judicial Member) and P. Anjani Kumar (Technical Member) has observed that the refund amounts quantified in the original 2016 orders had attained finality. The department could not reopen the issue of quantification while implementing the Tribunal's subsequent order. The 2024 CESTAT decision only required payment of the already sanctioned refund amounts to the companies instead of crediting them to the Consumer Welfare Fund. Fresh and enhanced deductions of Cenvat credit were legally unsustainable. The dispute traces its origins to the excise duty exemption regime applicable to cement units located in Himachal Pradesh under Notification No. 50/2003-CE. ACC Limited and Ambuja Cements manufactured clinker, a key intermediate product in cement manufacturing. While a portion of the clinker was sold on payment of duty, the remaining quantity was captively consumed for manufacturing cement that enjoyed excise duty exemption. The department had denied exemption under Notification No. 67/95-CE on clinker used captively in the manufacture of exempted cement, resulting in substantial duty payments by the companies. The issue eventually reached the Supreme Court, which, on August 21, 2015, held that the companies were entitled to exemption on the clinker captively consumed and consequently became eligible for refunds of amounts deposited during the course of litigation. Following the Supreme Court ruling, the adjudicating authorities sanctioned refunds amounting to over ₹652.41 crore in the case of ACC Limited and ₹191.09 crore in the case of Ambuja Cements. However, instead of releasing the amounts to the companies, the authorities credited the refunds to the Consumer Welfare Fund by invoking the doctrine of unjust enrichment. While calculating the refund amounts, certain Cenvat credit amounts were also deducted after verification. The companies challenged only the decision to credit the refunds to the Consumer Welfare Fund. In July 2024, CESTAT ruled that the amounts deposited by the companies during litigation were in the nature of statutory pre-deposits under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and therefore the principle of unjust enrichment was inapplicable. The Tribunal directed that the refunds be paid to the companies after deducting the Cenvat credit already accepted by them. When implementing the 2024 Tribunal order, the department recalculated the Cenvat credit component and increased the deduction substantially. For ACC Limited, the deduction was increased from approximately ₹39.44 crore to ₹55 crore, reducing the refund amount by more than ₹15 crore. Similarly, for Ambuja Cements, the deduction was increased from approximately ₹11.24 crore to ₹12.81 crore. The companies challenged these fresh deductions, arguing that the refund quantification made in 2016 had already attained finality because the department never appealed against those orders. The Tribunal agreed with the appellants and held that its 2024 order could not be interpreted as authorizing the department to undertake a fresh exercise of refund quantification. According to the Bench, the earlier order merely clarified that refunds would be payable after deducting admissible Cenvat credit already accepted and accounted for during the original refund determination. It did not confer any right on the department to make a second deduction or increase the amount previously deducted. The Tribunal observed that such an interpretation would be contrary to law and would defeat the very purpose of the earlier judgment. A significant aspect of the ruling is the Tribunal's emphasis on the doctrine of finality. The Bench held that if the department believed the original refund quantification was incorrect, it should have challenged the refund orders passed in 2016. Having failed to do so, the department could not reopen the issue while merely implementing a subsequent appellate order. The Tribunal relied upon several precedents, including the decision in Nokia India Sales Pvt. Ltd., which held that once an adjudication order sanctioning a refund is not challenged by the department, the findings therein attain finality and cannot later be questioned in appellate proceedings initiated by the assessee on a different issue. The Bench further noted that the original refund orders were not mechanical in nature. The adjudicating authorities had undertaken detailed verification through jurisdictional officers and examined the Cenvat credit figures before arriving at the final refund amounts. In both ACC and Ambuja cases, the authorities had scrutinized records, verified credit availed on inputs and input services, and deducted the relevant amounts while sanctioning refunds. Therefore, there was no legal basis for revisiting those calculations years later. The impugned appellate orders were set aside and both appeals were allowed. Case Details Case Title: M/s ACC Limited Versus Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Shimla Citation: JURISHOUR-1518-HC-2026(CHAN) Case No.: Excise Appeal No. 60524 of 2025 Date: 02.06.2026 Counsel For Appellant: J.C Patel, Advocate Counsel For Respondent: Amita Gupta, Authorized Representative Click Here To Read Order Read More: Cenvat Credit Availed on Invoices Issued by Bogus and Non-Existent Suppliers Is Inadmissible: CESTAT

Dept. Can’t Reopen Finalized Refund Quantification by Recalculating Cenvat Credit While Implementing Tribunal Order: CESTAT

Membership Required

Latest articles

Section 96 of RFCTLARR Act Overrides Tax Ambiguity: CBDT Clarifies Compensation for Acquired Land Not Taxable

President Promulgates Income Tax Amendment Ordinance, 2026; Exempts FIIs and BIS from G-Sec Tax Liabilities

SEBI Probes Rajesh Exports Over Revenue Misrepresentation; Company Denies Allegations

RBI Keeps Repo Rate at 5.25%: Impact on Loans, EMIs and Savings

More like this

Section 96 of RFCTLARR Act Overrides Tax Ambiguity: CBDT Clarifies Compensation for Acquired Land Not Taxable

President Promulgates Income Tax Amendment Ordinance, 2026; Exempts FIIs and BIS from G-Sec Tax Liabilities

SEBI Probes Rajesh Exports Over Revenue Misrepresentation; Company Denies Allegations

About us

Company

Categories