Just a moment...
Generate professional replies to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Step 1 – Issue Identification & Review
The AI analyses your query, notice, order, or uploaded documents and identifies the key issues involved.
• Review the issues identified by the AI
• Add, edit, remove, or refine issues as required
Step 2 – Draft Generation
Once you approve the issues, the AI performs issue-wise legal research and prepares a structured draft response.
• Relevant statutory provisions
• Judicial precedents and Supreme Court, High Court and other citations
• Issue-wise legal analysis
• Practical arguments and supporting content
• Professionally structured draft ready for further review. 
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to cash refund of the amount debited while filing the refund claim of unutilised CENVAT credit against exports, and consequential payment with applicable interest, under the transitional regime.
Analysis: The claim arose from exports made in the pre-GST period and the refund application under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 was rejected. The decision notes that the relevant notification permits the claimant to take back the credit of the difference between the amount claimed and the amount sanctioned, and that a zero sanction effectively left the entire debited amount available for re-credit. The Tribunal further held that, in the transitional context, Section 142(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 supported grant of cash refund of the pre-GST credit amount, and the saving framework under Section 174 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 did not justify deferring the relief.
Conclusion: The appellant was entitled to cash refund of Rs. 35,52,543/- with applicable interest, if any, and the rejection order was modified accordingly.