9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (12) TMI 1341 - Commissioner - GSTRejection of refund for Central Excise duty paid on the goods cleared by various invoices - impugned goods returned as rejected from registered buyer under Section 142(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 - refund rejected on the ground that the identity of returned goods/rejected goods cannot be identified with the goods sent originally to the receiver by the appellant - rejection also on the ground that receiver of goods who returned the goods are registered with GSTIN and therefore they were required to return the rejected goods to the appellant as supply in terms of section 142(1) of the CGST Act, 2017. HELD THAT - There is a basic condition that the goods are identifiable to the satisfaction of the proper officer. But in the instant matter, the records have been so maintained that the proper officer is not in a position to ascertain the factual identification of returned goods from the records maintained by the appellant. The appellant has also failed to put forth any reasons as to when the subject goods were initially removed in the unit quantity as Nos then why the entry of said returned goods in their register have only been made in the unit quantity as weight in MT . Thus this also creates a doubt - Therefore, there are no force in the contention of the appellant and hold that the appellant has in all fronts failed to establish that the goods are identifiable to the satisfaction of the proper officer. Rejection of refund claims also on the reason that the receiver of the goods are registered with GSTN and therefore they were required to return the rejected goods to the appellant as supply in terms of section 142(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT - The appellant has not disputed the findings of the adjudicating authority that the receiver of goods namely M/s Damodar Valley Corporation are registered with GSTN bearing GSTN-20AABCD0541MIZ5 and M/s Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited are registered with GSTN bearing GSTN-33AAACN1121C1ZG. Therefore, the contention of the appellant is not acceptable in view of the clear provision of law which stipulates that the registered person shall be eligible for refund of the duty paid under the existing law only where such goods are returned by a person, other than a registered person. But in the instant matter the goods were returned by the registered person, therefore refund is not admissible in the instant matter on this reason also. Besides, the proviso to section 142(1) of the Act provides that if the said goods are returned by a registered person, the return of such goods shall be deemed to be a supply. The goods returned by M/s Damodar Valley Corporation or by M/s Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited who are registered person, should be treated as 'Deemed Supply' in their hands in terms of proviso to section 142(1) of the CGST Act, 2017. M/s Damodar Valley Corporation or by M/s Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited were required to charge GST on the Deemed Supply. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
Issues:
- Appeals filed for refund under section 142(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 for Central Excise Duty paid on goods returned after the appointed day. Analysis: 1. Brief Facts of the Case: - The appellant, engaged in manufacturing, filed refund applications for Central Excise duty paid on goods returned after the appointed day. - The adjudicating authority rejected the refund claims citing reasons related to the identification of returned goods and the requirement for registered persons to return goods as a supply. 2. Grounds of Appeal: - The appellant contended that no obligation exists to inform the department about received rejected goods under Section 142(1) of the CGST Act, 2017. - They argued that the returned goods being rejected do not constitute a supply, especially when the returners are GST-exempt entities. 3. Personal Hearing and Decision: - A personal hearing was conducted where the appellant reiterated appeal grounds. - The appellate authority examined the records and submissions, highlighting the conditions for refund eligibility under Section 142(1) of the CGST Act, 2017. 4. Identification of Goods Issue: - The adjudicating authority rejected refund claims due to discrepancies in documenting the weight of returned goods. - The appellant maintained records in Metric Tonnes but received orders in Numbers, leading to confusion in identifying the returned goods to the satisfaction of the proper officer. 5. Registered Person Requirement: - Refund claims were also rejected as the goods were returned by registered persons, triggering a deemed supply situation under Section 142(1) of the CGST Act, 2017. - The appellant's argument that the return of rejected goods did not constitute a supply was dismissed, emphasizing the legal requirement for refund eligibility. 6. Final Decision: - The appellate authority upheld the rejection of refund claims, emphasizing the failure to establish the identification of returned goods and the deemed supply situation triggered by returns from registered persons. - Consequently, all five appeals filed by the appellant for refund under Section 142(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 were rejected.
|
