No Remand to Lower Authority Required if Refund of Additional Credit is Found Admissible Based on Revised Return Filed Timely | CESTAT

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

Refund of Unutilized Cenvat Credit
Case Details: Commissioner, Central Tax, Goods & Service Tax, Delhi East Versus CH2M Hill (India) (p.) Ltd. (2025) 26 Centax 284 (Tri.-Del)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

  • Shri Anil Choudhary, Member (J)
  • Shri Mahesh Bhardwaj, Authorised Representative, for the Appellant.
  • Ms Ashwini Chandrasekharan & Ms Priyanka Rathi, Advs., for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The appellant, a registered entity engaged in providing sponsorship and business support services, initially filed an ST-3 return for April-June 2017, claiming Cenvat credit of Rs. 55,000. Upon discovering an error, a revised return was submitted, increasing the credit to Rs. 34,05,873, including Rs. 19,88,779 for service tax under reverse charge. However, only Rs. 20,38,779 could be carried forward to GST through TRAN-1, as per the transitional provisions, leaving a balance of Rs. 14,31,473 unutilized due to limitations in the carry forward mechanism. The appellant filed a refund claim for this unutilized balance, but the Adjudicating Authority rejected the claim, stating refunds are only permissible for export-related credits. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) acknowledged the appellant’s entitlement to the refund but remanded the matter for recalculation. The appellant challenged the remanding order, seeking a direct resolution.

CESTAT Held

The Hon’ble Tribunal, after considering the facts and arguments presented, held that the appellant is entitled to the refund of the unutilized Cenvat credit. The Tribunal observed that the Commissioner (Appeals) had rightly acknowledged the appellant’s entitlement to the refund based on the revised return and the transitional provisions under Section 142(9)(b) of the CGST Act. The Tribunal further noted that there was no additional compliance or merit issue that required further examination, as the appellant had duly complied with all relevant provisions. Therefore, the Tribunal modified the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), directing the Adjudicating Authority to grant the refund within 60 days from the date of receipt of the order, along with interest as per Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act.

List of Departmental Clarification Cited

Leave Comment

Your email address will not be published.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

Related Stories
Refund of Service Tax Paid by Mistake on Exempted Services Allowed With 12% Interest | CESTAT

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

July 16, 2025

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