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Your email address will not be published.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
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