TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 182
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y India Private Limited to M/s. Dell International Services India Private Limited pursuant to scheme of merger. This Miscellaneous Application is allowed and Registry is directed to change the appellant's name from M/s. EMC Technology India Private Limited to M/s. Dell International Services India Private Limited. 2. Briefly the facts are that the appellant M/s. Dell International Services India Pvt. Ltd. (formerly known as M/s. EMC Technology Pvt. Ltd.), Bangalore had filed a refund claim for an amount of Rs.29,01,131/- in terms of Section 142(9)(b) of CGST Act, 2017 read with Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant had transferred lesser amount of credit as per the original service tax returns in their TRAN-I returns ins....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce this section has overriding effect over other existing laws, the refund cannot be denied. Reliance is placed on following case laws: • Punjab National Bank vs. Commissioner of CT Bangalore North 2021 (52) GSTL 421 (Tri.-Bang.) • GE Power Systems India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad 2024 (25) CENTAX 355 (Tri. Ahmd) • Lupin Ltd. vs. Commissioner of GST and Central Tax, Aurangabad Commissionerate 2025 (26) CENTAX 192 (Tri.-Bom.) 4. The learned Authorised Representative (AR) reiterated the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) and submits that refund was rightly rejected. 5. Heard both sides. The undisputed facts are the appellant had transitioned cenvat credit of Rs Rs.13,14,46....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... amount 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 provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 (1 of 1944) 6. In the present case, undisputedly the appellant had filed a revised return within the stipulated time; hence, as per Section 142(3), the appellant is eligible for refund of cenvat credit in cash. Moreover, this issue is no longer res integra as it stands settled in favour of the appellant as decided in number of cases relied upon by the appellant. In one such case in the case of GE Power Systems....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....T.L. 321 (Mad.) has held that GST law contemplates seamless flow of tax credit on all eligible inputs. It is settled legal position that substantive credit cannot be denied on procedural grounds. 8. We find that the appellant has paid the tax under the erstwhile law. In the present case, the claim is only for refund and not proceedings for assessment or adjudication. In such a scenario, sub-section (3) of section 142 gets attracted. Rejection of the refund claim is not legally valid and merits to be set aside 9. For the reasons stated we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal. The appellant is eligible for consequential relief as per law." Similar view was taken by this Tribunal in the case of Welsuit G....