TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 419X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... its finality. Accordingly. the appeal filed by the appellant is rejected - the Order in Original passed by the adjudicating authority is upheld - there are no infirmity in the impugned order - appeal disposed off. - 118(MAA)CGST/JPR/2020 - - - Dated:- 23-12-2020 - (MANZOOR ALI ANSARI) ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) This appeal has been filed under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 by M/s Arihant Plast, Plot No.G-119, Road No.3, RIICO Industrial Area, Bindayaka, Jaipur-302012 (hereinafter also referred to as the appellant ) against the Order-in-Original No.(RFD-06) Dated 18.05.2020 (hereinafter as the impugned order ) passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods Service Tax Division-G, Ja ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... DGGI, Jaipur along with their comments. The copy of the above said letter did not provide to appellant, which is vital part of this Adjudication Proceeding. Without providing the copy of above said DGGI, Jaipur's letter, the rejection order passed by the learned Adjudicating Authority is against the law of natural justice, hence bad in the eye of law, accordingly deserves to be set aside. that the learned Adjudicating Authority wrongly considered that period declared by the appellant in their refund claim is wrong. In fact appellant mentioned the date of debit of disputed amount, and period of dispute arises from that day. Moreover the limitation of refund governed from the date of deposit of tax etc., not from the period of dispute. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... central Tax (Rate), dated 28-6-2018. that the Officers from DGGSTI (JZU), Jaipur were visited In our factory premises on 2.03.2020 and misguided us that parts /components of sprinkler system are bearing GST tariff rate of 18 % instead of 12 %. In this regard, During the visit of the factory by the officers forced us to pay differential GST, as above, i.e. @6%. Under the directions of the officers we paid part payment, which was available at the point of time, detailed as under: (a) Vide DRC-03 - ARN No. - AD080320000363U- ₹ 2100000/ that the above said payment were made under the direction of the learned officers, as they explained that parts and components of the sprinkler system are not covered under GST tariff rate of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f parts/ components/ laterals of sprinkler system. On being represented by the trade, Press Release no.78/2018 dated 22.12. 2018 was issued in which it was clarified as below: Clarifications Sprinkler system consisting of nozzles, lateral and other components would attract 12% GST rate under S. No. 195B of Notification No. 1/2017-Central Tax (Rate), dated 28-6-2018. Thereafter Circular no. 81/55/2018-GST (Letter no. 354/408/2018-TRU issued by Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue), dated 31.12.2018 and clarified as below that the contents of the above circular are very much relevant and important. 4. Personal Hearing in the matter was fixed on 17.12.2020 at 1100 Hrs through video conference. Shri Arvind Sharma, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CGST Rules, 2017 when the investigation is in process. c) The matter of short payment of GST on supply of parts/accessories/fittings/components is under investigation. Thus the filing of refund claim at this juncture appears pre-mature as the matter is under investigation. In view of the comments of DGGST, Jaipur Zonal Unit, Jaipur the adjudicating authority has rejected the refund claim amounting to ₹ 21,00,000/- being inadmissible to the claimant. 6. In view of the above facts, I find that the appellant has deposited the said amount vide DRC-03 dated 02.03.2020 during the investigation and further he himself stated that matter is still under investigation with DGGSTI, Jaipur. Therefore, I find that refund claim filed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
