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Your email address will not be published.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
FA 2010 Service Tax Levy on Construction Upheld | HC

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

January 31, 2026

Tobacco Products Assessable Under Section 4, Not 4A | CESTAT

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

January 28, 2026

Clandestine Removal Demand Set Aside For Lack Of Proof | CESTAT

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

January 27, 2026

No Review on Interest/Penalty If Duty Set Aside | HC

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

January 24, 2026

Duty Demand Set Aside; Review Of Interest Penalty Invalid | HC

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

January 23, 2026

Booking Speakers Via Agents Not Event Management | SC

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

January 22, 2026

RCM Service Tax Refund Allowed Despite Registration Status | CESTAT

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

January 21, 2026

One-Day Delayed Payment Due To Tech Glitch Accepted | HC

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

January 20, 2026

Chocolate-Coated Wafers Eligible For Concessional Duty | SC

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

January 19, 2026

Adjudication Invalid After SVLDRS Acceptance | HC

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

January 17, 2026