IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL EASTERN ZONAL BENCH: KOLKATA REGIONAL BENCH – COURT NO. 1 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 22/SLG-CE/2024-25 dated 20.06.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Appeals, Siliguri (Appeal) Commissionerate, G.S.T. Bhawan, H.M. Road, Hakimpara, Siliguri – 734 001)

M/s. Ishan Snax Private Limited : Appellant Ghoshpukur Fulbari Byepass, Phansidewa, District: Darjeeling, PIN – 734 434 VERSUS Commissioner of C.G.S.T. and Central Excise : Respondent Siliguri Commissionerate [Pertaining to O/o. Assistant Commissioner, C.G.S.T. and Central Excise, Siliguri Division, 35, Sarat Bose Road, Siliguri, PIN – 734 001]

APPEARANCE:

Shri Navin Kr. Agrawal, Advocate, for the Appellant Shri A. Mukherjee, Authorized Representative, for the Respondent CORAM:

HON’BLE SHRI ASHOK JINDAL, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

HON’BLE SHRI K. ANPAZHAKAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

FINAL ORDER NO. 75263 / 2026 DATE OF HEARING / DECISION: 18.02.2026 ORDER: [PER SHRI K. ANPAZHAKAN]

M/s. Ishan Snax Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the “appellant”) is engaged in the manufacture of extruded snacks and potato chips. During the pre-GST regime, the appellant imported capital goods under the EPCG (Export Promotion Capital Goods) Scheme. Installation of such capital goods at the factory premises was duly certified by the jurisdictional Central Excise authorities.

2. Due to non-fulfilment of export obligation under the EPCG licence, the appellant regularised the licence by paying the entire duty foregone along with interest in March 2022, including CVD under Section 3(1) and SAD under Section 3(5) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The DGFT thereafter issued a final duty-paid regularisation letter dated 18.08.2022.

3. Under the erstwhile Central Excise law, the CVD and SAD so paid were admissible as CENVAT credit under Rule 3 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. However, post implementation of GST w.e.f. 01.07.2017, there existed no mechanism to avail or transition such credit, though the duties were paid under the existing law. Accordingly, the appellant filed a refund claim of Rs. 78,09,688/- on 09.01.2023 under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

4. The refund claim was rejected on the grounds that CENVAT credit had not accrued prior to the appointed day. It was held that Section 11B does not permit cash refund of CVD and SAD, and accordingly the claim was rejected as time-barred.

5. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), vide the impugned Order-in-Appeal No. 22/SLG-CE/2024-25 dated 20.06.2024, upheld the rejection of the refund claim.

5.1. The appellant has filed this appeal against the rejection of the refund claim vide the impugned order. 6. The appellant has submitted that they are entitled to refund of CVD and SAD under Section 142(3) and 142(6) of the CGST Act, 2017, as such duties were admissible as CENVAT credit under the erstwhile Central Excise regime but became incapable of utilisation due to repeal of the CENVAT Credit Rules after introduction of GST.

6.1. The appellant also stated that with the introduction of GST from 01.07.2017, the erstwhile indirect tax laws were subsumed and transitional provisions under Sections 140 to 142 of the CGST Act, 2017 were enacted to safeguard accrued rights, including refunds of CENVAT credit. Sections 142(3) and 142(6) specifically provide that refund claims relating to CENVAT Credit, duty or tax paid under the existing law, filed before, on or after the appointed day, shall be processed under the provisions of the existing law and any admissible amount shall be refunded in cash, provided such credit was not carried forward under GST. It is submitted that in the present case, the appellant filed the refund claim on 09.01.2023, well after the appointed day, for CVD and SAD paid under the earlier regime, which it was otherwise entitled to avail as CENVAT credit under the Central Excise Act, 1944; since the excise law had been repealed, availing such credit through returns or carrying it forward