9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (6) TMI 901 - AT - CustomsRefund of IGST - Duty drawback - C.B.I.C. Circular No. 37/2018-Customs dated 09.10.2018 - HELD THAT - Hon ble court in M/S. PRECOT MERIDIAN LIMITED VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS 2020 (1) TMI 90 - MADRAS HIGH COURT and M/S AMIT COTTON INDUSTRIES THROUGH PARTNER, VELJIBHAI VIRJIBHAI RANIPA VERSUS PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS 2019 (7) TMI 472 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT have held inter alia that the circular in question being merely in the form of instructions or guidance to the concerned department, it only explains the provisions of the duty drawback; that it has nothing to do with the IGST refund; and that circulars cannot prevail over the statute, etc., and have directed the refund as claimed therein. Since interpretation under GST/IGST is involved, the orders are set aside and the matter is remanded back to the file of the Adjudicating Authority for fresh disposal in accordance with the law as declared/interpreted by courts - Appeal allowed by way of remand.
Issues:
Refund claim of IGST based on duty drawback rate discrepancy. Analysis: The appeal was filed against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs rejecting the IGST refund claim arising from an export where duty drawback was claimed at a higher rate due to lack of clarity. The appellant had reversed the excess duty drawback with interest, which was not disputed by the revenue. The Adjudicating Authority, referring to a CBIC Circular, rejected the refund claim, a decision upheld by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals-II). During the hearing, the appellant's advocate cited decisions from the High Courts of Madras and Gujarat, emphasizing that circulars cannot override statutory provisions and that they have no bearing on IGST refunds. The Tribunal noted that the lower authorities had solely relied on the circular to deny the refund, which was inconsistent with the interpretations in the cited court decisions. Hence, the denial of refund was deemed unsustainable, and the matter was remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for fresh disposal in line with court interpretations, emphasizing the need for fair opportunities for the appellant. The appeal was allowed by way of remand, setting aside the previous orders.
|
