9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (1) TMI 695 - Commissioner - GSTRefund of input used in exported goods by Sea - rejection of refund claim mainly on the ground of being time barred - Section 54(1) of CGST Act 2017 - N/N. 35/2020-C.T. dated 3-4-2020 as amended vide N/N. 55/2020-C.T. dated 27-6-2020 - HELD THAT - Initially the appellant has filed the refund application on 27-8-2020 for the period April 2018 to August 2018 in category of Rule 89 4(4B) of CGST Rules 2017 of inputs used in exported goods. In the instant matter the EGMs have been filed for the said export consignments are on or before 31-8-2018 the meaning thereby the export goods leaves India on or before 31-8-2018. As per customs procedure EGM means (Export Goods Manifest) a document which are filed by the carrier of the export consignment before the departure of the carrier (shipments airlines etc., ) and it is considered as proof of shipment. From the conjoint reading of Section 54(14)(2) of the CGST Act 2017 read with Notification No. 35/2020-C.T. dated 3-4-2020 as amended vide Notification No. 55/2020-C.T. dated 27-6-2020 and Rule 90(3) of CGST Rules 2017 - as per relevant date the refund application should have been filed on or before 31-8-2020 whereas in the instant matter the fresh refund applications have been filed after issuance of deficiency memo by the appellant on 8-9-2020. Thus the appellant has filed refund applications in the instant matter beyond the period of 2 years from the relevant date. The adjudicating authority has rightly and properly rejected all the refund applications on the ground of time barred - Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the refund claims of inputs used in exported goods filed by the appellant are time-barred. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Whether the refund claims of inputs used in exported goods filed by the appellant are time-barred: The appellant, M/s. Campus Pharma Private Limited, filed five appeals under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 against the Orders-in-Original passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods & Service Tax Division-I, Jaipur. The appellant sought refunds for the periods April 2018 to August 2018 under Section 54(1) of the CGST Act, 2017, for inputs used in exported goods. Facts of the Case: - The appellant initially filed applications for refunds on 27th August 2020. - The adjudicating authority issued deficiency memos on 2nd September 2020, citing missing statements and supporting documents. - The appellant then refiled the applications on 8th September 2020. - The adjudicating authority rejected the applications on 30th September 2020, stating they were time-barred as per Section 54(1) of the CGST Act, 2017, read with Notification No. 35/2020-C.T., dated 3-4-2020, and Notification No. 55/2020-C.T., dated 27-6-2020. Appellant's Arguments: - The appellant argued that the initial applications were filed within the extended deadline of 31st August 2020. - They contended that the fresh applications were merely in compliance with the deficiency memo and should be considered as a continuation of the original applications. - The appellant cited Rule 90(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017, which allows for the rectification of deficiencies and resubmission of applications. - They referenced various case laws to support their argument that the initial filing date should be considered for the two-year period. Legal Provisions and Analysis: - Section 54(1) of the CGST Act, 2017, stipulates that refund applications must be made before the expiry of two years from the relevant date. - Section 54(14)(2)(a)(i) defines the "relevant date" as the date on which the ship or aircraft carrying the exported goods leaves India. - Rule 89(4B) of the CGST Rules, 2017, and Rule 90(3) require that deficiencies in refund applications be communicated, and fresh applications be filed after rectification. - Notification No. 55/2020-C.T., dated 27-6-2020, extended the deadline for compliance falling between 20-3-2020 to 30-8-2020 to 31-8-2020. Findings: - The adjudicating authority issued deficiency memos on 2-9-2020, and the appellant refiled the applications on 8-9-2020. - The relevant date for the refund applications was on or before 31-8-2018, meaning the applications should have been filed by 31-8-2020. - The fresh applications filed on 8-9-2020 were beyond the two-year period from the relevant date. Conclusion: The adjudicating authority correctly rejected the refund claims as time-barred. The appellant's contention that the initial filing date should be considered was against the provisions of Rule 90(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017. Therefore, all five appeals filed by the appellant were rejected.
|
