https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758675 CESTAT Mumbai allowed the appeal regarding refund of excess CENVAT credit under transitional provisions. The appellants had filed revised ER-1 returns for June 2017 and sought refund of unutilized CENVAT credit under Section 142(9) of CGST Act, 2017. The Commissioner (Appeals) had rejected the refund application citing absence of cash refund provision under Rule 5 of CCR. CESTAT held that Section 142(9)(b) of CGST Act operates as a non-obstante clause with overriding effect over existing Central Excise Act provisions, except Section 11B(2). The tribunal concluded that transitional provisions under CGST Act are sufficient for sanctioning cash refund of excess CENVAT credit during regime transition, setting aside the impugned order. en-us Mon, 09 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 17 Sep 2024 10:27:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758675 CESTAT Mumbai allowed the appeal regarding refund of excess CENVAT credit under transitional provisions. The appellants had filed revised ER-1 returns for June 2017 and sought refund of unutilized CENVAT credit under Section 142(9) of CGST Act, 2017. The Commissioner (Appeals) had rejected the refund application citing absence of cash refund provision under Rule 5 of CCR. CESTAT held that Section 142(9)(b) of CGST Act operates as a non-obstante clause with overriding effect over existing Central Excise Act provisions, except Section 11B(2). The tribunal concluded that transitional provisions under CGST Act are sufficient for sanctioning cash refund of excess CENVAT credit during regime transition, setting aside the impugned order. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 09 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758675