Mere Non-Furnishing of Information in Return Cannot Be the Sole Ground to Deny Refund of Unutilized CENVAT Credit | CESTAT

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

Unutilized CENVAT Credit
Case Details: Vaibhav Global Ltd. Versus Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax, Customs & Central Excise, Jaipur) (2025) 28 Centax 66 (Tri.-Del)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

  • Shri Anil Choudhary, Member (J)
  • Shri Rajesh Chhibber, Adv., for the Appellant.
  • Shri Pradeep Gupta, Authorised Representative, for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

A 100% Export-Oriented Unit (EOU) claimed a refund of unutilized CENVAT credit for the quarter ending June 2017 under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, read with Notification No. 27/2012-CE (NT) dated 18-06-2012. Due to a clerical mistake in the ER-12 return, an incorrect credit amount was recorded. The appellant, unable to revise the return as per Notification No. 8/2016-CE (NT) dated 01-03-2016, promptly informed the department on 04-09-2017, well before filing the refund claim on 06-10-2017. However, the department partially denied the refund solely on the ground that the closing balance in ER-12 did not reflect the claimed amount. This denial led the appellant to file an appeal before the CESTAT.

CESTAT Held

The Hon’ble CESTAT ruled that substantive benefits cannot be denied on technical grounds. Since Notification No. 27/2012-CE (NT) dated 18-06-2012 does not mandate that refund claims must match the ER-12 closing balances, the tribunal held that the partial refund denial was unjustified. The ruling reaffirmed that mere non-furnishing of certain information in statutory returns cannot override eligibility, particularly when no such restrictive condition exists under Notification No. 8/2016-CE (NT) dated 01-03-2016.

List of Cases Cited

List of Notifications Cited

  • Notification No. 27/2012-C.E. (N.T.), dated 18-6-2012 [Paras 2, 3, 10]
  • Notification No. 8/2016-CE (NT), dated 1-3-2016 [Paras 5, 7, 11]
  • Notification No. 42/2016-C.E. (N.T.) [Paras 3]

Leave Comment

Your email address will not be published.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

Related Stories
No Interference Needed as Assessee Ignored SCN & Hearings | HC

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

May 5, 2025

HC Quashes Penalty on Partner for Non-Service of SCN

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

May 2, 2025

No Service Tax on Freight and Insurance Recovered From Dealers | CESTAT

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

April 30, 2025

HC Sets Aside Ex-Parte Service Tax Order for Ignoring Assessee’s Contention

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

April 29, 2025

HC Condones 165-Day Delay in Filing Appeal Due to Counsel’s Lapse

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

April 29, 2025

Punjab and Haryana HC Upholds Disallowance of Cenvat Credit Depreciation

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

April 28, 2025

HC Rules Limitation u/s 11B Doesn’t Apply to Service Tax Refunds Paid by Mistake

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

April 28, 2025

Proceedings for Recovery of Interest Cannot Survive Once Tax Demand is Invalidated and a Refund is Ordered | CESTAT

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

April 16, 2025

Extended Period of Limitation Cannot Be Invoked as Assessee Had Bona Fide Belief That Service Tax Was Not Payable on Services

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

April 10, 2025

Valuation Can’t Be Done at 110% of Cost if Goods Used for Rendering Services, Not for Resale or Manufacture | CESTAT

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

April 10, 2025