Transitional refund rights cannot create a fresh cash refund claim without an accrued entitlement under the earlier tax regime.

Section 142(3) of the CGST Act preserves only refund claims already maintainable under the erstwhile law and does not create a new right to cash refund. In this EPCG-related dispute, the imported capital goods were subject to conditional exemption, and entitlement depended on fulfilment of export obligation and satisfaction of installation and use requirements. The record did not establish that the goods were duly installed and put to use so as to support CENVAT credit under the old regime. Because no substantive right to credit or refund had accrued earlier, the transitional provisions could not be invoked to obtain refund. The refund claim was therefore inadmissible.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund of CVD and allied customs duties paid on failure to fulfil EPCG export obligation was admissible under the transitional provisions of the CGST Act, and whether the appellant had any enforceable right to cash refund after not establishing entitlement to CENVAT credit under the erstwhile regime.

Analysis: The refund claim was examined against the EPCG conditions, the earlier CENVAT framework, and the transitional scheme under Section 142(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The imported capital goods were subject to a conditional exemption, and the entitlement depended on compliance with the export obligation and satisfaction of the installation and use requirements. The record did not establish that the capital goods were duly installed and put to use in the appellant's factory in the manner required for availing credit. The Tribunal further held that Section 142(3) only provides the modality for dealing with claims already maintainable under the existing law; it does not create a fresh right to refund where no such right had accrued or where the assessee had not lawfully availed or preserved the credit under the old regime. Reliance on transitional and refund provisions could not overcome the absence of a substantive right to credit or refund under the erstwhile law.

Conclusion: The refund was not admissible and the appellant's claim failed.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was rejected, affirming the denial of refund on the ground that the transitional provisions could not be used to generate a cash refund in the absence of an accrued right under the earlier tax regime.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 142(3) of the CGST Act preserves only existing refund entitlements under the old law and does not confer a new right to cash refund where the assessee had no lawful entitlement to CENVAT credit or refund under the erstwhile regime.

---