9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 1273X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e at Raxaul, it is the Bihar Unit that is responsible for export on preparing ARE-I. Removal of goods without paying duty (under Bond) from Haldia Refinery to the export warehouse at Raxaul, therefore, cannot be termed as export of goods within the meaning of section 2(5) of IGST Act and cannot be termed as zero rated supply under Section of the IGST Act. Movement from the Applicant's factory at Haldia to the export warehouse at Raxaul is not, therefore, inextricably linked to ultimate export to Nepal. The Appellant has admitted that the NOC issued PDO (Product Delivery Order) on Raxaul Depot of the IOCL which is actually the supply point of the products. And the Appellant's Raxaul unit prepared and submitted ARE-I (Application for Export) to the Customs Authority for endorsement. Hence, the final clearance of goods for export has taken place from the Raxaul unit, the export warehouse of the Appellant and not from the Appellant's Haldia unit. Therefore, endorsement copies of ARE-3 cannot be treated as final proof of export. There is no infirmity in the ruling rendered by the West Bengal Authority for Advance Ruling. - Case No. 10/WBAAAR/Appeal/2018-19 - - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case on the following grounds: (A) The Hon'ble WBAAR has erred in holding the supply from Haldia to Raxual are not 'Zero rated supplies' under Section 16(1)(a) of the IGST Act and also erred in holding that the said supplies are non-taxable supplies under Section 2(78) of the CGST Act and the supply is not inextricably linked to the ultimate export to Nepal. (B) The Hon'ble WBAAR has erred in holding the movement of goods from Haldia refinery to its export warehouse at Raxaul is not inextricably linked to the ultimate export to Nepal. (C) The Hon'ble WBAAR failed to appreciate that as per agreement, IOCL (Indian Oil Corporation Limited) shall not supply the POL (Petroleum, Oil and Lubricants) Products covered under the agreement to parties other than NOC (Nepal Oil Corporation Ltd.) in Nepal. As per the agreement, the IOCL shall sell POL Products to NOC at a price on bond, that is free of all Indian duties and taxes. (D) As per Clauses 4.0 (g, h i) of the Agreement which clearly indicates that the relevant products need to be dispatched from Haldia and the final prices would include ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated the points as stated in Grounds in Appeal. The Appellant further referred the following and also submitted the summarized written submission on dated 05.03.2019: (a) The Appellant drew attention to the sub-section 2 of Section 16 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which states that Subject to the provisions of sub-section (5) of section 17 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, credit of input tax may be availedfor making zero-rated supplies, notwithstanding that such a supply may be an exempt supply. The Appellant also drew attention to the definitions of 'exempt supply' and 'non-taxable supply' as laid down under subsection (47) and sub-section (78) of section 2 of the GST Act, respectively. (b) The Appellant further pointed out that sub-clause (8) of Clause 2 of minutes of Agreement which state that The Nepalese side expressed the desire to take products in bond i.e. free of all Indian taxes. They would levy such customs duties on these products as they may determine from time to time. For this purpose the Indian side has agreed that effective from a date to be mutually agreed upon, the facility for storage, receipt and d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wise rebuttal of submissions made by the Appellant: (a) The Respondent denied that the relevant product needed to be dispatched only from Haldia. In the clause 4.0 (g, h and i), the names of Haldia/Mumbai Refineries are mentioned. (b) The Respondent also denied that the agreement entails movement of goods only from Haldia. In the clause 4.0 (g, h and i), the names of Haldia/Mumbai Refineries are mentioned. (c) With reference to submissions made by the Appellant that Raxaul unit was simply a branch, it was stated that the fact of Raxaul being branch of the appellant is of no consequence in the present case. The West Bengal Unit of IOCL and IOCL's Raxaul warehouse happen to be distinct persons in terms of section 25(4) of the GST Act. (d) The submission made by the appellant in paragraph related to the maintenance of sufficient stock at Raxaul was also disputed and the Responded submitted that the Hon'ble West Bengal Authority for Advance Ruling (WBAAR) discussed in details in para 12 to 18 of the order No. 17/WBAAR/2018-19 dated 18.09.18 = 2018 (9) TMI 1342 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING GOODS AND SERVICE TAX, WEST BENGAL the reasons and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9 dated 18.09.18 = 2018 (9) TMI 1342 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING GOODS AND SERVICE TAX, WEST BENGAL that the agreement with NOC was not an export order. It is, according to clause 3(a), an umbrella agreement between the parties for a period of five years with effect from 01/04/2017. The Hon'ble WBAAR, rightly held that according to the agreement, specific Product Delivery Orders (PDO) raised by NOC (Nepal Oil Corporation), were the actual export orders or indents placed on a supply point. (j) It was explained in details in the order No. 17/WBAAR/2018-19 dated 18.09.18 = 2018 (9) TMI 1342 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING GOODS AND SERVICE TAX, WEST BENGAL as to why transfer of ATF and other non-taxable supplies from Haldia Refinery to Raxaul Depot were not Zero rated supplies under section 16(1)(a) of the IGST Act but were exempted supplies from the West Bengal Unit to the Bihar Unit of the Applicant. 7. The matter is examined and written and oral submissions made before us are considered. 8. Sub-section (1) of section 5 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 provides for as under: A sale or purchase of goods shall be deemed to take place i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ARE-I. Removal of goods without paying duty (under Bond) from Haldia Refinery to the export warehouse at Raxaul, therefore, cannot be termed as export of goods within the meaning of section 2(5) of IGST Act and cannot be termed as zero rated supply under Section of the IGST Act. 13. Movement from the Applicant's factory at Haldia to the export warehouse at Raxaul is not, therefore, inextricably linked to ultimate export to Nepal. 14. The judgments cited by the Appellant in course of hearing are very much distinct from the issue in the present case. The cited judgments dealt with question of sale or stock transfer/branch transfer when transfer of goods from manufacturing unit in one State to seller's godowns/ branch outside that State for delivery to buyer pursuant to agreement to sell. The present issue relates to availability of Input Tax Credit paid on transportation cost under GST regime on the goods which are transported from the refinery of IOCL at Haldia to its Export Warehouse at Raxual, Bihar. 15. The Appellant has admitted that the NOC issued PDO (Product Delivery Order) on Raxaul Depot of the IOCL which is actually the supply point of the produc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
