TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 703X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... matter of refund claim for the period April-2018 to March-2019 amounting to ₹ 40,64,000/- under which it has been clearly/explicitly stated by the appellant that they will not go for appeal against the refund rejection made by the adjudicating authority and requested to release the input in their credit ledger so that they may re-apply for the refund after removing deficiencies - the appellant has mis-conceived/mis-leaded the facts while filing of appeal to this office as he has not disclosed the vital facts that he had made a request vide written letter to the proper officer for re-credit of amount to their electronic credit ledger which were debited at the time of filing of refund application by the appellant. The appellant has himself forfeited his right to file the appeal before Appellate Authority by submitting an undertaking before the adjudicating authority/proper officer as per explanation given under Rule 93 (2) of CGST Rules, 2017 - the instant appeal is non maintainable - Appeal dismissed. - 153 (MAA) CGST/JPR/2021 - - - Dated:- 30-6-2021 - (MANZOOR ALI ANSARI) ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ORDER This appeal has been filed under Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t has filed the appeal on 27.11.2020, the delay of 201 days from the normal period prescribed under Section 107(1) of the CGST Act, 2017, the reason for delay is given that certified copy of impugned order for refund rejection was received on 28.08.2020. Further, the appellant in the above context vide their letter dated 17.06.2021 submitted that they received copy of order on 24.08.2020 from the Division-H. The appellant, however, without admitting the delay, submit that even if it is considered so, then limitation period for filing appeal would have ended on 10.05.2020. That in terms of the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment dated 23.03.2020, wherein the Apex Court taking suo motu cognizance of the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic has extended the period of limitation prescribed under the law with effect from 15.03.2020 till further orders. Further, the Hon'ble court vide order dated 27.04.2021 has restored the order dated 23rd March 2020 thereby directing that the period(s) of limitations, as prescribed under any General or Special Laws in respect of all judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings, whether condonable or not, shall stand extended till further orders from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he claim amount. However, he is agreed that the refund of ITC pertaining to Capital Goods are not admissible as per provisions of sub rule 4 of Rule 89 of CGST Rules, 2017 accordingly, he has withdrawn the refund application to the extent of ITC amount of Capital Goods and he has submitted the calculation sheet for eligible refund amount i.e. ITC related to goods and services. In view of the above, the appellant requested to decide the case. 5. I observed that in the instant case the appeal has been filed by delay of 35 days from the normal period prescribed under Section 107(1) of the CGST Act, 2017. I find that though the delay in filing the appeal is condonable only for a further period of one month provided that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal is shown and the delay of more than one month is not condonable under the provisions of sub section (4) of Section 107 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. With regard to delay in filing of appeal, the appellant has submitted that certified copy of order for refund rejection was received on 28.08.2020. Further, the appellant vide letter dated 17.06.2021 submitted that in terms of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be substituted; (ii) for the words, figures and letters 30th day of June, 2020 , the words, figures and letters 31st day of August, 2020 shall be substituted. Looking to the Covid-19 pandemic situation, I am inclined to condon the delay. Accordingly, I am proceeded to decide the case. 6. I have gone through the case records and written submission as inscribed in the appeal memo, the oral iteration offered by the appellant in their appeal memo. Accordingly, I proceeded to decide the case envisioning the facts submitted by the appellant as well as put forth in the impugned order. 7. On going through the impugned Order in Original passed by the Adjudicating Authority, I find that the Adjudicating Authority has rejected the refund claim of the appellant mainly on the ground that No reply of Show Cause Notice has been received till now, therefore it assumed that claimant has nothing to submit reply in support of the claim and refund found inadmissible. 8. I find that the appellant has contested that refund claim for the period April, 2018 to March, 2019 is not time barred as per the provisions of section 54(1) of the CGST Act, 2017. Further, the appellant in appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted at the time of filing of refund application by the appellant. Further, on going through the comments offered by the proper officer I observed that by acceding the request of the appellant he has re-credited the rejected refund amount through Form PMT-03 to the appellant credit ledger as per provisions of Rule 93 (2) of the CGST Rules, 2017. Rule 93 of CGST Rules, 2017 provides that - (2) Where any amount claimed as refund is rejected under Rule 92, either fully or partly, the amount debited, to the extent of rejection, shall be re-credited to the electronic credit ledger by an order made in FORM GST PMT-03*. Explanation . - For the purposes of this rule, a refund shall be deemed to be rejected, if the appeal is finally rejected or if the claimant gives an undertaking in writing to the proper officer that he shall not file an appeal. 12 From the above facts and provisions of law, I find that the appellant has himself forfeited his right to file the appeal before Appellate Authority by submitting an undertaking before the adjudicating authority/proper officer as per explanation given under Rule 93 (2) of CGST Rules, 2017. Therefore, I am the considered view that the i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
