Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Bharat Coking Coal Limited vs Ranchi Commissionerate on 17 January, 2025 IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL EASTERN ZONAL BENCH : KOLKATA REGIONAL BENCH COURT NO. 1 Excise Appeal No. 76139 of 2019 (Arising out of OrderinAppeal No. 101/RAN/2019 dated 29.01.2019 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Goods and Service Tax and Central Excise, Grand Emerald Building (2nd & 3rd Floors), Ashok Nagar, KadruArgora Main Road, Ranchi 834 002) M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited : Appellant Koyla Bhawan, Dhanbad, PIN 826 005 (Jharkhand) VERSUS Commissioner of C.G.S.T. and Central Excise : Respondent Ranchi Commissionerate Grand Emerald Building (2nd & 3rd Floors), Ashok Nagar, KadruArgora Main Road, Ranchi 834 002 APPEARANCE: Shri Sanjay Dixit, Advocate for the Appellant Shri S.K. Dikshit, Authorized Representative for the Respondent HON'BLE SHRI K. ANPAZHAKAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) FINAL ORDER NO. 75070 / 2025 DATE OF HEARING: 06.01.2025 DATE OF DECISION: 17.01.2025 ORDER: M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Koyla Bhawan, Dhanbad, PIN 826 005, Jharkhand (hereinafter referred to as the "Appellant") are engaged in the production and clearance of coal. Prior to November, 2015, the Appellant had separate registration for their area offices / washeries with the respective jurisdictional central excise authorities and discharged Central Excise Duty and filed returns with the respective authorities. With effect from November, Page 2 of 9 Appeal No.: E/76139/2019SM 2015, they took centralized registration and started filing a single consolidated monthly ER1 return after obtaining the data from all of their 21 area offices / washeries. 2. The Appellant issues invoices which contain two different dates viz. loading date on which the coal is cleared; and invoicing date on which the invoice in respect of the coal is ultimately issued. Excise Duty is discharged by the Appellant on the basis of the loading date. 2.1. During the period November, 2015 to December, 2015, certain area offices of the Appellant provided details of the coal cleared on provisional basis as the final figures were not available. Accordingly, there was an excess payment of Central Excise Duty, as claimed by the Appellant, amounting to Rs.25,39,396/ for the month of November, 2015 and Rs.8,513/ for the month of December, 2015. The Appellant filed a refund claim on 03.12.2016 claiming refund of Central Excise Duty totally amounting to Rs.25,47,909/. 3. The refund claimed by the Appellant was rejected by the ld. adjudicating authority vide the OrderinOriginal No. 01/REFUND/AC/DNB North/2017 dated 25.08.2017 4. On appeal, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection of the refund claim vide the impugned OrderinAppeal No. 101/RAN/2019 dated 29.01.2019 5. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the Appellant has filed this Appeal. Page 3 of 9 Appeal No.: E/76139/2019SM 6. The submission of the Appellant is that while filing the returns for the month of November, 2015, some area offices had provided an estimated amount for filing of return as billing was not complete at that time; similarly, it is stated that while filing the return for the month of December, 2015, the figures provided by some area offices were an estimated one because billing was not complete at that time. Accordingly, they have filed the refund for the excess payment of duty paid. The Appellant contends that the Ld. AC has grossly erred in observing that actual verification of duty liability for the period November 2015 and December 2015 was not possible on the basis of bill wise details submitted. The Appellant states that they had submitted the details of errors in ER1 returns filled and details of correct figures that should have been considered while verifying the correctness of total duty actually payable and refund claimed, vide their letter dated 18.02.2016 and have also submitted the attested copies of invoices issued in relation to clearances made during the period in dispute vide letter dated 03.12.2016; these evidences submitted by them vide letter dated 18.02.2016 clearly support the correct duty payable by them for the period under dispute. On perusal of the Statements of excise duty a