https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=752012 CESTAT Hyderabad dismissed the appeal regarding cash refund of unutilized input credit that was neither transitioned under TRAN-1 procedure nor reflected in ER-1 returns post GST implementation. The tribunal held that Section 142(3) of CGST Act does not create new refund rights that didn't exist under previous Central Excise Act and CCR 2004. Since cash refund of unutilized Cenvat credit was only available for specific purposes under Rules 5, 5A, and 5B of existing law, and the appellant failed to follow prescribed procedures under Section 140 or 142(9)(b), the refund claim of Rs.14,40,627 was properly rejected by lower authorities. en-us Tue, 30 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 01 May 2024 22:05:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=752012 CESTAT Hyderabad dismissed the appeal regarding cash refund of unutilized input credit that was neither transitioned under TRAN-1 procedure nor reflected in ER-1 returns post GST implementation. The tribunal held that Section 142(3) of CGST Act does not create new refund rights that didn't exist under previous Central Excise Act and CCR 2004. Since cash refund of unutilized Cenvat credit was only available for specific purposes under Rules 5, 5A, and 5B of existing law, and the appellant failed to follow prescribed procedures under Section 140 or 142(9)(b), the refund claim of Rs.14,40,627 was properly rejected by lower authorities. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 30 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=752012