TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 616
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d stated that prior to 01.07.2017, CENVAT credit of such duty was available but since 01.07.2017, no credit of such duty was available under the GST regime. They had filed the refund claim for the said amount of Rs. 24,12,483/-. A Show Cause Notice dated 20.12.2018 was issued to the appellant proposing to reject the refund claim on the ground that the non-availability of CENVAT credit cannot be the ground for refund under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 and also on the ground of unjust enrichment. The Show Cause Notice was adjudicated by the Adjudicating Authority/Jt. Commissioner who rejected the appellant's refund claim of Rs. 24,12,483/- on the ground that merely the non-availability of set-off (input tax credit) under GST Act does not become a criteria for claiming refund under Customs Act, 1962. In the Order-in-Original, it has been stated that as the refund claim was not admissible on the said ground, the calculation for determining amount of Customs duty and refund as per SION, verification of original documents etc. and examination for unjust enrichment has not been carried out in the present case. Aggrieved with the Order-in-Original, the appellant filed appeal bef....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fund is available but the Assistant Commissioner CGST, Division-III, Ahmedabad returned the refund papers on the ground that the refund was rejected by the Jt. Commissioner, Customs. Later the appeal of the appellant was rejected without proper grounds. 3.2 Learned Consultant for the appellant cited the following orders/judgments to support his arguments: (a) JSW Steel Limited vs. Commissioner of Central Tax & Central Excise - (2024) 24 Centax 70 (Tri. Bang.) (b) Granules India Limited vs. Commissioner of Central Tax, Hyderabad - (2024) 25 Centax 166 (Tri. Hyd.) (c) Pr. Commissioner of Central Tax, Hyderabad vs. Granules India Limited - (2024) 25 Centax 167 (Telangana) (d) Atul Limited vs. Union of India -2025 (101) GSTL 376 (Guj.) 4. Learned AR for the department submitted that against the judgment pronounced in Pr. Commissioner of Central Tax, Hyderabad vs. Granules India Limited - (2024) 25 Centax 167 (Telangana), the department has filed appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which is still pending. However, the learned AR conceded that Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has also passed similar judgment as was passed in Granules India ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....refund claim for same. Section 142(3) of CGST Act, 2017 provides as follows:- Section 142 of the CGST Act, 2017 "(3) Every claim for refund filed by any person before, on or after the appointed day, for refund of CENVAT credit, duty, tax interest or any other amount paid under the existing law, shall be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of existing law and any amount eventually accruing to him shall be paid in cash, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained under the provisions of existing law other than the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (1 of 1944): PROVIDED that where any claim for refund of CENVAT credit is fully or partially rejected, the amount so rejected shall lapse: PROVIDED FURTHER that no refund shall be allowed of any amount of CENVAT credit where the balance of the said amount as on the appointed day has been carried forward under this Act." Section 142(6) (a) of CGST Act, 2017 provides as follows:- "(6) (a) every proceeding of appeal, review or reference relating to a claim for CENVAT credit initiated whether before, on or after the appointed day un....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the order of Commissioner on the sole ground that the adjudicating authority has rejected the claim relying on the Single Member Bench decision in the case of Sarvo Packaging Ltd. There are number of judgments by this Tribunal itself which are contrary to the decision of Sarvo Packaging Limited 2020 (373) ELT 550 (Tri. Chennai). Moreover, even after considering the Sarvo Packaging Limited decision (supra), the Tribunal's Single Member Bench in the case of Sri Chakra Polyplast India Private Limited (supra) after relying upon many other decisions came to the conclusion that the appellant are entitled for the refund under Section 142(3) of CGST Act, therefore, the decision of Sarvo Packaging Limited stand departed. Even if the precedent value of the judgment is considered, it is settled law that the later decision is always better than the earlier one on the principle of 'later is better'. Accordingly, the judgment of Sri Chakra Polyplast India Private Limited prevails over the decision of Sarvo Packaging Limited. We also make it clear that we being a Division Bench have already given an independent finding hereinabove which gets reinforced by the later judgments of this Tribunal. Acc....