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Your email address will not be published.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
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