CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI PRINCIPAL BENCH – COURT NO. – IV [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 08-ST/Appeal-1/East/2023 dated 19.01.2024 passed by the Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise (Appeals-I), New Delhi] M/s. Ascent Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. …Appellant G-39, Pocket A-1, Mayur Vihar, Phase-III, New Delhi-110096 VERSUS Commissioner of CGST – Delhi East …Respondent Room No. G-29A, C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi - 110002 APPEARANCE:

Shri Khursheed Ahmad, Advocate for the Appellant Shri Rohit Issar, Authorized Representative for the Respondent CORAM:

HON’BLE DR. RACHNA GUPTA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

DATE OF HEARING: 24.02.2026 DATE OF DECISION: 24.02.2026 FINAL ORDER NO. 50391/2026 DR. RACHNA GUPTA Present appeal has been filed to assail Order-in-Appeal No.

08/206 dated 19.01.2024 which has upheld the Order-in-Original bearing No. 11/2022-23 dated 05.12.2022 vide which the refund claim of the available Cenvat credit for the period April to June

2017 has been rejected.

2. The facts in brief relevant for the adjudication are that the appellant was registered for providing Works Contract Services. The appellant have regularly paid service tax till the implementation of Central Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred as CGST Act, 2017) w.e.f. 01.07.2017 and does has accumulated Cenvat credit of the tax paid. However, due to on coming of the CGST Act, the appellant filed an application dated 27.08.2020 seeking refund of the Cenvat credit got accumulated for the period April 2017 to June 2017. The refund claim was objected invoking Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1994 (CEA) as being filed after one year vide notice dated 03.11.2020. The proposal of rejection was confirmed vide Order-in-Original No. 16/2020-21 dated 09.08.2021. In an appeal against the said order, Commissioner (Appeals) remanded back the matter vide Order-in-Appeal bearing No. 36/2021 dated 28.10.2021. The original adjudicating authority vide the aforesaid Order-in-Original has again rejected the refund claim of Rs. 18,14,287/- being barred by time. The said order has been confirmed vide the impugned Order-in-Appeal (as mentioned above). Being aggrieved, the appellant is before this Tribunal.

2. I have heard Shri Khursheed Ahmad, learned Advocate for the appellant and Shri Rohit Issar, learned Authorized Representative for the department.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the closing Cenvat credit of Rs.18,14,287/- is vis-à-vis the last return of April to June 2017 which was filed on 29.09.2017. It is submitted that the said credit has not been disputed by the department at any stage. There is no allegation of wrong availment, ineligible credit or mis-representation of any kind. It is further submitted that after the introduction of GST, though the appellant was required to file Tran-1 to carry forward the said accumulated credit, however Tran-1 could not be filed to carryforward the said credit to the appellant’s Noida Branch, as the business of appellant’s Delhi branch was closed.

3.1 It is further impressed upon that no alternative mechanism was provided. Resultantly the appellant was left with no option but to file the impugned refund claim. The rejection thereof invoking the time bar is not applicable to the appellant’s case as the refund was otherwise available in terms of the new introduced Act, Section 142 of the GST Act under which the bar of time of Section 11B of erstwhile Central Excise Act was not invokable. While relying upon the decisions in the case of Brand Equity Treaties Ltd. Vs. The Union of India & Ors. in W.P. (C) No. 11040/2018 with three other W.P. (C) as decided by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi on 05.05.2020, the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of Sutherland Global Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of CGST in Writ Petition No. 4773/2018 decided on 05.09.2019. learned counsel for the appellant has prayed for the order under challenge to be set aside and