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Your email address will not be published.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
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