CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI PRINCIPAL BENCH, COURT NO. 3 Excise Appeal No. 51606 of 2025 [Arising out of Order-IN-Appeal No. 87-GS-CE-JPR-2025 dated 24.07.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Central Goods & Service Tax, Jaipur]

M/s Alliance Polysacks Pvt Ltd ......APPELLANT Khasra No. 374, Manoharpur-Khora Road Village-Surana, Tehsil-Shahpura, Jaipur, Rajasthan 303120 Vs.

Commissioner of CGST and Central .......RESPONDENT Excise-Jaipur New Central Revenue Building, Statute Circle, C-Scheme, Alwar Rajasthan 302005 Appearance:

Ms. Priyanka Goel, Advocate for the Appellant Shri Anand Narayan Authorised Representative for the Respondent CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. ASHOK JINDAL, MEMBER ( JUDICIAL )

FINAL ORDER NO. 50380/2026 Date of Hearing :18.03.2026 Date of Decision:18.03.2026 ASHOK JINDAL:

The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order, wherein refund claim has been rejected as barred by limitation in terms of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

2. The facts of the case are that the appellant has imported raw materials of PP bags under advance licence No. 1310048061 dated 10.12.2015 and 1310047869 dated 15.05.2015 by filing bills of entry dated 29.08.2016 in excess raw materials as against advance licences here in above. The CVD was paid by the appellant on 17.12.2017 and thereafter, the appellant filed refund claim of the CVD paid by them as they could not able to take Cenvat credit of CVD due to introduction of GST regime. The refund claim filed by the appellant on 24.04.2023 which was rejected by the authorities below being barred by limitation.

Aggrieved from the said order, the appellant is before me.

3. Heard the parties. Considering the fact that the issue has been examined by this Tribunal in the case of M/s Ishan Snax Private Limited Vs. Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Siliguri reported in 2026 (2) TMI 1076 – CESTAT Kolkata, wherein, this Tribunal has observed as under:

“9.1. In this regard, we note that CENVAT Credit is a vested right and cannot be extinguished merely due to absence of a procedural mechanism under GST Denial of refund defeats the doctrine of legitimate expectation and violates Articles 14 and 265 of the Constitution. The refund claim arises from the transitional provisions of the CGST Act and not independently from Section 118 of the Central Excise Act. Consequently, conditions under Section 11B(2) cannot be used to deny a refund specifically permitted under Section 142 of the CGST Act.

9.2. The appellant could not transition or avail the credit through TRAN-1 as the duties were paid after 01.07.2017 Law does not compel performance of an impossibility. We observe that, under similar circumstances, Refund of CVD and SAD paid post-GST has been uniformly allowed in multiple decisions.

9.3. We find that the issue is no longer res integra as the same issue has been decided by CESTAT, New Delhi, in the case of M/s. New Age Laminators Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Goods and Services Tax, Alwar, Rajasthan [2022(3) TMI 748), wherein it has been categorically held that as credit of CVD and SAD was no longer available under GST regime, which was however available under erstwhile regime of Central Excise prior to 30-6-2017, an appellant is entitled to refund under the provisions of Section 142(3) and (6) of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The relevant paragraphs of the said decision are reproduced below for ready reference:

"7. Having considered the rival contentions, I find that the payment of CVD and SAD subsequently during GST regime, for the imports made prior to 30-6-2017 is not disputed under the advance authorisation scheme. It is also not disputed that the appellant have paid the CVD and SAD in May, 2018 & May, 2019, by way of regularisation on being so pointed out by the Revenue Authority Further, I find that the Court below have erred in observing in the impugned order, that without producing proper records of duty paid invoice