No Remand to Lower Authority Required if Refund of Additional Credit is Found Admissible Based on Revised Return Filed Timely | CESTAT

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

Refund of Unutilized Cenvat Credit
Case Details: Commissioner, Central Tax, Goods & Service Tax, Delhi East Versus CH2M Hill (India) (p.) Ltd. (2025) 26 Centax 284 (Tri.-Del)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

  • Shri Anil Choudhary, Member (J)
  • Shri Mahesh Bhardwaj, Authorised Representative, for the Appellant.
  • Ms Ashwini Chandrasekharan & Ms Priyanka Rathi, Advs., for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The appellant, a registered entity engaged in providing sponsorship and business support services, initially filed an ST-3 return for April-June 2017, claiming Cenvat credit of Rs. 55,000. Upon discovering an error, a revised return was submitted, increasing the credit to Rs. 34,05,873, including Rs. 19,88,779 for service tax under reverse charge. However, only Rs. 20,38,779 could be carried forward to GST through TRAN-1, as per the transitional provisions, leaving a balance of Rs. 14,31,473 unutilized due to limitations in the carry forward mechanism. The appellant filed a refund claim for this unutilized balance, but the Adjudicating Authority rejected the claim, stating refunds are only permissible for export-related credits. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) acknowledged the appellant’s entitlement to the refund but remanded the matter for recalculation. The appellant challenged the remanding order, seeking a direct resolution.

CESTAT Held

The Hon’ble Tribunal, after considering the facts and arguments presented, held that the appellant is entitled to the refund of the unutilized Cenvat credit. The Tribunal observed that the Commissioner (Appeals) had rightly acknowledged the appellant’s entitlement to the refund based on the revised return and the transitional provisions under Section 142(9)(b) of the CGST Act. The Tribunal further noted that there was no additional compliance or merit issue that required further examination, as the appellant had duly complied with all relevant provisions. Therefore, the Tribunal modified the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), directing the Adjudicating Authority to grant the refund within 60 days from the date of receipt of the order, along with interest as per Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act.

List of Departmental Clarification Cited

Leave Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Stories
Texturising Polyester Yarn from PET Chips Not Manufacture of Filament Yarn | SC

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

November 4, 2025

Spice Mix Adding Flavour and Aroma Classifiable as Spices Under Tariff 0910 91 00 SC

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

November 1, 2025

Refund on Abated Value Denied Without Challenging Self-Assessment | CESTAT

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

October 31, 2025

Refund Must Be Granted as No Stay on Judgment Excluding Trade Discounts From Turnover | HC

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

October 30, 2025

Delay Beyond Condonable Limit for Fixation of Special Rate Not Excusable | HC

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

October 29, 2025

HC Quashes SCN for Non-Compliance with Mandatory Pre-Consultation

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

October 16, 2025

SC Upholds Tax on Ink Used in Printing Lottery Tickets

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

October 15, 2025

Packing or Labeling of Earthmoving Machines Not Manufacture | SC

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

October 14, 2025

Subscription and Entrance Fees from Members Not Liable to Service Tax | CESTAT

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

October 13, 2025

Independent Appeal Against ROM Order Dismissed Only Final Tribunal Order Appealable | HC

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

October 9, 2025