https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760658 CESTAT Hyderabad dismissed the appeal challenging refund denial under Section 142(3) of CGST Act 2017. The tribunal held that while Section 142(3) provides mechanism for cash refunds, the underlying eligibility for refund must be established under existing law. Following precedent from NACL Industries Ltd., the tribunal found refund was not permissible where otherwise ineligible. The tribunal distinguished the Bosch Electrical Drive case as addressing appeal maintainability rather than refund admissibility. Rejecting appellant's argument that credit constitutes substantive right requiring refund under Section 174, the tribunal held credit is merely a concession, not a substantive right. Commissioner (Appeals) order was upheld. en-us Fri, 18 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 24 Oct 2024 16:10:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760658 CESTAT Hyderabad dismissed the appeal challenging refund denial under Section 142(3) of CGST Act 2017. The tribunal held that while Section 142(3) provides mechanism for cash refunds, the underlying eligibility for refund must be established under existing law. Following precedent from NACL Industries Ltd., the tribunal found refund was not permissible where otherwise ineligible. The tribunal distinguished the Bosch Electrical Drive case as addressing appeal maintainability rather than refund admissibility. Rejecting appellant's argument that credit constitutes substantive right requiring refund under Section 174, the tribunal held credit is merely a concession, not a substantive right. Commissioner (Appeals) order was upheld. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 18 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760658