FINAL ORDER NO.60388-60389/2026

DATE OF HEARING: 19.03.2026

DATE OF DECISION: 02.06.2026

P. ANJANI KUMAR:

1. M/s ACC Ltd (Appeal No. E/60524/2025) and Ambuja Cements Ltd (Appeal No. E/60906/2025) assail the impugned orders dated 29-4-2025, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), CGST, Chandigarh, upholding the Order-in-Original dated 26-12-2024 and 27-11-2024 respectively, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, CGST Mandi Division, Himachal Pradesh, wherein the amount of refund granted to the appellants, in pursuit of Tribunal’s Final Order No.60395-60396/2024 dated 1-7-2024, was reduced to the extent of Rs. 55,00,39,624 and 12,81,28,016 respectively, on account of Cenvat Credit availed on Clinker manufactured and used by them captively. Factual matrix of both the cases being identical and being dealt a common impugned order, both appeals were heard together and are being taken up together.

2. Both the Appellants’ factories are located in Himachal Pradesh and were engaged in the manufacture of Cement; the appellants availed exemption from Central Excise duty under Notification no.50/2003-CE dated 20th June 2003; the Appellants also manufactured Clinker, part of which was cleared outside the factory on payment of duty and balance was used captively in the factory for manufacture of the Cement on which the said duty exemption under Notification No.50/2003-CE was availed; the Appellants were denied the benefit of exemption from Central Excise duty under Notification No.67/95-CE dated 16-3-1995 on the portion of the Clinker which was captively consumed in the manufacture of exempted Cement on the grounds that final product was exempted; the Appellant had litigated the issue up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Hon’ble Supreme Court, by their Order dated 21-8-2015, held that the Appellants were entitled to the exemption under Notification no.67/95-CE on the Clinker captively consumed.

2.1. In view of the said Order by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Appellants became entitled to refund of the amounts which were pre-deposited pending the Appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals), Tribunal and Supreme Court. The Appellants accordingly, requested the Deputy/Assistant Commissioner to refund the said amounts with interest; Deputy/Assistant of Central Excise, vide Orders-in-Original sanctioned the Refund but ordered the same to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund on the grounds of unjust enrichment. Deputy/Assistant while calculating the refund as above, deducted amounts on account of Cenvat Credit availed on the inputs and input services used in relation to the Clinker captively consumed; the impugned orders recorded that the Appellants agreed to such deduction.

2.2. The Appellants carried the matter in appeal against the crediting of the sanctioned refunds to the Consumer Welfare Fund, instead of paying the same to the Appellants. This bench, vide Final Order No.60395-60396/2024 dated 1-7-2024, held that the amount deposited by the Appellants, were in the nature of Pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act 1944; the principle of unjust enrichment does not apply and that in any case the appellants had by evidence rebutted the presumption of passing the incidence of the said amount and that the Appellants were entitled to the refunds which were earlier sanctioned but credited to the consumer welfare fund.

2.3. Particulars and figures in respect of both the appeals are as below.