TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 1353X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , it shall mean that the same pertains to only Customs component and is available irrespective of whether the exporter has availed of Cenvat Facility or not . I also find that the appellant s commodity are classifiable under Tariff Item No. 6914 Other Ceramic Articles , (Invoice No. 17/25, dated 29-7-2017) under Notification No. 1/2017-Central Tax (Rate), dated 28-6-2017 which attracts the same rates of drawback i.e. 1.5% under both the columns (4) (6). Hence, it is evident that the appellant has claimed drawback of Customs component only for their export - Further, as per Circular No. 22/2017-Cus., dated 30-6-2017, which deals with drawback claims for the transition period, clearly provides that While a transition period of three months has been allowed, the exporters shall have an option to claim only Customs portion of AIRs of duty drawback i.e. rates and caps given under column (6) (7) respectively of the Schedule of AIRs of duty drawback and avail input tax credit of CGST or IGST or refund of IGST paid on exports . Furthermore, C.B.E. C. vide Circular No. 37/11/2018-GST in F. No. 349/47/2017-GST, dated 15-3-2018 has also clarified that a supplier availing drawback only ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es made under Section 16 of the IGST Act, 2017. 3. The refund of CGST ₹ 6,36,878/-, IGST ₹ 11,219/- was rejected on the ground that the appellant has claimed DBK in Group A and also not submitted invoices relating to ITC of IGST ₹ 11,680/- and of SGST ₹ 398/-. 4. Being aggrieved with the above impugned order, the appellant has filed appeal on the following grounds which are summarized as under :- 4.1 That the adjudicating authority in its order raised an entirely different ground from the ground raised in the Show Cause Notice and rejected refund of IGST ₹ 11,219/-, CGST ₹ 6,36,878/- on the ground that the appellant has claimed DBK in group A and also rejected refund of IGST of ₹ 11,680/- and SGST ₹ 398/- due to non-submission of invoices. (i) That sub-section (3) of Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017 is being reproduced : (3) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (10), a Registered person may claim refund of any unutilised input tax credit at the end of any tax period : Provided that no refund of unutilised input tax credit shall be allowed in cases other than - (i) zero rated supplies made without pay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Services Tax (IGST) on the export goods or on inputs and input services used in manufacture of export goods or claim refund of IGST paid on export goods. Further, an exporter claiming composite rate shall also be barred to carry forward Cenvat credit on the export goods or on inputs or input services used in manufacture of export goods in terms of the CGST Act, 2017. The exporters have to give a declaration and certificates as prescribed in this Notification at the time of export. Similar checks shall apply while determining the Brand rate of drawback. While a transition period of three months has been allowed, the exporters shall have an option to claim only Customs portion of AIRs of duty drawback i.e. rates and caps given under column (6) and (7) respectively of the Schedule of AIRs of duty drawback and avail input tax credit of CGST or IGST or refund of IGST paid on exports. 4.5 That further the Notification No. 131/2016-Cus. (N.T.), dated 31-10-2016 which provides for the rates of drawback along with certain notes and conditions. One such condition states that if the rate of drawback in Column A Column B is same, then the same pertains to only customs component and is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lumn A. but in reality the rate of drawback under the drawback schedule for goods falling under Chapter 6914 is same under both the column A B i.e. 1.5%. 4.4 From the combined reading of the above paras, it is ample clear that when the rates of drawback are same i.e. in this case 1.5%, then the rate pertains to customs component only and not towards the Central Excise and Service Tax component. That a copy of the drawback rate prescribed in the aforesaid notification is reproduced below : 6910 Ceramic sinks, wash basins, wash basin pedestals, baths, bidets, water closet pans, flushing cisterns, urinals and similar sanitary fixtures 1.5% 1.5% 6911 Tableware, kitchenware, other household articles and toilet articles, of porcelain or china 1.5% 1.5% 6912 Ceramic tableware, kitchenware, other household articles and toilet articles, other than of porcelain or china 1.5% ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly, 2017 on account of that the appellant has claimed DBK in Group A and not submitted the invoices relating to ITC of IGST and SGST. 7. I further observe that consequent upon implementation of GST with effect from 1-7-2017, Customs, Central Excise Duties and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995 were also continued for a transition period of three months i.e. from July, 2017 to September, 2017 vide [Circular] No. 22/2017-Cus., dated 30-6-2017. According to notes conditions No. 7 to Notification No. 131/2016-Cus., dated 31-10-2016, if the rate indicated is the same in the columns (4) and (6), it shall mean that the same pertains to only Customs component and is available irrespective of whether the exporter has availed of Cenvat Facility or not . I also find that the appellant s commodity are classifiable under Tariff Item No. 6914 Other Ceramic Articles , (Invoice No. 17/25, dated 29-7-2017) under Notification No. 1/2017-Central Tax (Rate), dated 28-6-2017 which attracts the same rates of drawback i.e. 1.5% under both the columns (4) (6). Hence, it is evident that the appellant has claimed drawback of Customs component only for their export. Further, as per Circular No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
