CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, WEST ZONAL BENCH : AHMEDABAD REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO. 2 [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No AHD-CUSTM-000-APP-457-19-20 dated 02.12.2019 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax-AHMEDABAD]

Kiri Industries Limited …. Appellant Plot No. 299/1 A&B, 293/2, Near Water Tank, Phase-II, G.I.D.C, Vatva, Ahmedabad Gujarat -382445 VERSUS Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad .... Respondent Custom House, Near All India Radio Navrangpura, Ahmedabad, Gujarat APPEARANCE :

Shri R R Dave, Consultant for the Appellant Smt. Sunita Menon, Superintendent (AR) for the Revenue.

CORAM:

HON’BLE DR. AJAYA KRISHNA VISHVESHA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

DATE OF HEARING : 16.01.2026 DATE OF DECISION: 12.02.2026 FINAL ORDER NO. 10077/2026 DR. AJAYA KRISHNA VISHVESHA :

This appeal has been preferred by the appellant feeling aggrieved from the impugned Order-in-Appeal No. AHD-CUSTM-000-APP-457-19-20 dated 02.12.2019 passed by learned Commissioner (Appeals)Ahmedabad through which the learned Commissioner has rejected the appeal preferred by the appellant and upheld the Order-in-Original passed by Jt. Commissioner.

2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellant had filed a refund claim of Rs. 24,12,483/- under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 towards CVD/SAD paid on MEIS Scrips under the provisions of Para 3.02 of Foreign Trade Policy 2015-2020, on excess import quantity of raw materials imported under Advance Authorization Licenses. The appellant had 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 before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) who vide the impugned order, rejected the appeal and upheld the Order-in-Original. Feeling aggrieved from the impugned Order-in-Appeal the present appeal has been filed before the Tribunal.

3. Learned Consultant for the appellant submitted that appellate authority has rejected the refund claim on the ground that non-availability of set off (input Tax Credit) under GST Act does not become a criteria for claiming refund under Customs ACT, 1962. It does not make the claimant entitled to claim refund under Customs Act, 1962. The argument of the learned Consultant for the appellant is that in Section 142(3) of the CGST Act, 2017 it has been provided that 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. The learned Consultant for the appellant submitted that the Adjudicating Au