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Your email address will not be published.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
HC Validates Pre-Deposit Payment via Electronic Cash Ledger

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

July 15, 2025

HC Grants Stay on Service Tax Demand Upon 5% Deposit

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

July 15, 2025

SC Upholds 90% Abatement for Online Travel Firm as Tour Operator

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

July 11, 2025

Service Tax Demand Can’t Be Based Solely on 26AS–ST-3 Mismatch | CESTAT

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

July 10, 2025

Massage and Hair Oils with Alcohol Not Excisable | CESTAT

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

July 9, 2025

HC Grants Time for Pre-Deposit | Revives VAT Appeal

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

July 8, 2025

No Remand Needed for Accepted and Paid Tax Demand | HC

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

July 4, 2025

Writ Not Maintainable in Brand Income Tax Dispute | SC

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

July 3, 2025

No Consignment Note Means No GTA Service | CESTAT on RCM Liability

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

July 3, 2025

ST Demand Set Aside as Authority Ignored Special Audit & Reconciliation | HC

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

July 2, 2025