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Your email address will not be published.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
SC Dismisses Appeal, Upholds HC Order Limiting Cenvat Credit Use

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

September 17, 2025

Maintenance Reimbursements Not Part of Renting Service | CESTAT

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

September 12, 2025

Construction Agreements With Landowners Are Works Contract | SC

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

September 12, 2025

Market Support Services to Foreign Entity Treated as Export: CESTAT

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

September 10, 2025

Lease of Land for Port and Marine Activities Attracts Service Tax | CESTAT

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

September 8, 2025

Services to Foreign Client for Market Promotion Qualify as Export | CESTAT

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

September 5, 2025

Installing Software With COA Stickers Is Sale—Not Service | SC

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

September 5, 2025

SC Rules Freight Collected by Agents Not Taxable

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

August 30, 2025

Service Tax Demand Invalid When Trade Discounts Passed On | CESTAT

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

August 28, 2025

CGST Officers Can Pursue Pending Service Tax Matters | CESTAT

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

August 22, 2025