9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 160X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d of IGST paid in relation to the exports undertaken by it of goods which are described to be insulated cables to a party based in Myanmar, namely, M/s. Khin Maung Tum & Brothers Co. Ltd. 3. The Petitioner has contended that such claim of the Petitioner, which is for an amount of Rs. 21,41,451/-, has been denied by Respondent No. 2, which was legitimately due to the Petitioner, being a zero rated supply in terms of Section 16(3) of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 ("IGST Act") read with Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 ("CGST Act) and Rule 96 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 ("CGST Rules"). 4. The Petitioner has contended that on 19th December 2017, the Petitioner had filed a GST R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thereafter, re-submitted the refund documents, namely, the Tax Invoice, Shipping Bill, GST Forms, etc. Also a Certificate issued by a Chartered Accountant certifying the Petitioner's export transaction vide Shipping Bill No. 8360082 came to be submitted by the Petitioner. 6. The Petitioner has contended that, however, despite all such compliances, there was no response from the Respondents. On such backdrop, on 26th September 2020, the Petitioner lodged a grievance in regard to the IGST refund with the Central Public Grievance Redress And Monitoring System ("CPGRAMS"). The Petitioner's grievance was acknowledged. The Petitioner received an e-mail dated 7th October 2020 that the Petitioner's grievance has been disposed on the ground that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e clear position in law as seen from the provisions of Section 54 of CGST Act as also Rule 96 of the CGST Rules, such refund could not be denied to the Petitioner. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the decision of the Respondents to close the case of the Petitioner was not correct in as much as this was not a case where the Petitioner had claimed a drawback at a higher rate, as the notification dated 31st October 2016 clearly indicates that the rate of duty and the duty drawback was 2% being a common rate as seen in respect of Item 854499 in Schedule annexed to the petition. In support of the Petitioner's contention, reliance is placed on the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Kishan Lal Kuria Mal Internation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tax paid on zero rated supplies of goods or services or both or on inputs services, etc. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the case of the Petitioner is a case of zero rated supply under Section 16(3) of the IGST Act. In these circumstances, Rule 96 of the CGST Rules, which provides for refund of integrated tax paid on goods or services exported out of India had become applicable. On this, there is no dispute. 10. In such circumstances, the only question, which is required to be determined is as to whether the Respondents are correct in their assertion that in making the refund as claimed by the Petitioner the Petitioner had claimed duty drawback at the higher rate of the IGST refund as seen from the reply received by the Pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... instant case, the assessee had never availed the option to take drawback at higher rate in place of the IGST refund. In such circumstances, the Circular is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 9. Even as per the Condition No.7 of the Notification 131/2016- Cus. (N.T.) dated 31/10/2016, if the rate indicated in the columns (4) i.e. higher duty drawback and (6) i.e. lower duty drawback are the same, then it shall necessarily imply that the same pertains only to the Customs component and is available irrespective of whether the exporter has availed of the CENVET facility or not. 10. The petitioner had exported Rope Making Machine HSN Code 84794000 which attracts the same rate under both the columns (4) & (6) respectively i.e. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case inter alia making the following observations: "6. From the facts on record, it is evident that the petitioner is claiming drawback of the custom component only for the goods exported by the petitioner at the rates specified therein. The rates of drawback under column 'A' and 'B' for the product exported by the petitioner is the same. The said fact is not disputed by the respondents. It is only on technical ground that affixing suffix 'A' claim of the petitioner is denied. The case of the petitioner is similar to the one decided by Gujarat High Court in the case of Awadkrupa Plastomech Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and confirmed by the Apex Court. 7. In view of the above, the petitioner succeeds. Respondents shall sanction the refund towards ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
