https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464956 CESTAT Mumbai held that it is the competent appellate forum for orders passed under Section 142 of the CGST Act, following the Larger Bench ruling in Bosch Electrical Drive. The Tribunal found that the appellant correctly followed Rule 6(3A) of the CCR and had provisionally reversed CENVAT credit in excess of what was actually required for April-June 2017. It held that Section 142(3) of the CGST Act, as a transitional provision with overriding effect, permits cash refund of such excess CENVAT credit, notwithstanding the absence of a specific refund mechanism in Rule 5 of the CCR. The impugned order was set aside and refund of Rs. 49,06,962/- was allowed. en-us Mon, 09 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 24 Nov 2025 14:51:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464956 CESTAT Mumbai held that it is the competent appellate forum for orders passed under Section 142 of the CGST Act, following the Larger Bench ruling in Bosch Electrical Drive. The Tribunal found that the appellant correctly followed Rule 6(3A) of the CCR and had provisionally reversed CENVAT credit in excess of what was actually required for April-June 2017. It held that Section 142(3) of the CGST Act, as a transitional provision with overriding effect, permits cash refund of such excess CENVAT credit, notwithstanding the absence of a specific refund mechanism in Rule 5 of the CCR. The impugned order was set aside and refund of Rs. 49,06,962/- was allowed. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 09 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464956