9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 721X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant that they have submitted copy of purchase orders, shipping bill or bill of jading to the Range Office in respect of supply made by the appellant and therefore condition enumerated in the notification has been very well complied with, is not acceptable. The burden to prove on which date and how the related documents were supplied is on the appellant. There should be a dated acknowledgement duly stamped by the department to prove that the relevant documents have been submitted to the department so that benefit could be provided to the appellant. But the appellant could not produce any substantial document which could prove/substantiate their claim that he has complied With the conditions of both the Notifications i.e. 40/2017 dated 23. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ure. The appellant has supplied the goods to exporters at the Fate of 0.05% (Central Tax Rate) and 0.1% (Integrated Tax Rate), provided in Notification No.40/2017 dated 23.10.2017 and 41/2017 dated 23.10.2017 respectively. The adjudicating authority had rejected the refund claim of ₹ 1,41,378/- on account of non compliance of conditions laid down in Notification No.40/2017 dated 23.10.2017 and 41/2017 dated 23.10.2017 which reads as under:- Condition No. (v) as per Notification No. 40/2017 41/2017 dated 23.10.2017 - In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 11 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (12 of 2017) (hereafter in this notification referred to as the said Act ), the Central Gove ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cipient shall provide copy of shipping bill or bill of export containing details of Goods and Services Tax Identification Number (GSTIN) and tax invoice of the registered supplier along with proof of export general manifest or export report having been filed to the registered supplier as well as jurisdictional tax officer of such supplier. 2.3 As per the condition mentioned at serial no.(v) in both the notifications i.e. 40/2017 -Central Tax (Rate) dated 23.10.2017 and 41/2017 -Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 23.10.2017, the registered recipient should have provided a copy of order placed at concessional rate of duty to the jurisdictional tax officer of the registered supplier, and the same was not provided to the range office (jurisdictio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice and division office. -that the observation taken in para 6 of impugned order is that the RO has reported vide his, letter dated 07.01.2019 that no such letter of intimation has been received from the registered recipient in their office and the copy submitted by the applicant has no evidence or seal of office which prove that the intimation/document was not submitted to the department in the scheduled time although documents was sent by the appellant through speed post and mail was also sent by the appellant. Again all the copy of documents sent by the appellant is enclosed herewith this appeal. -that circular No.37/11/2018-GST dated 15.03.2018 has been issued to clarify various issues in relation to processing of claims for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submissions made in the appeal memorandum as well as oral submission made at the time of personal hearing held on 20.02.2020. I find that the adjudicating authority has alleged that the appellant has not complied with the conditions mentioned at serial no.(v) (ix) of the Notification No.40/2017 dated 23, 10.2017 and 41/2017 dated 23.10.2017 and rejected the refund claim of Input Tax Credit accumulated on account of Inverted Duty Structure filed by the appellant under Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017. The condition no.(v) (ix) of the Notifications i.e. 40/2017 dated 23.10.2017 and 41/2017 dated 23.10.2017 reads as under: v) the registered recipient shall place an order on registered supplier for procuring goods at concessional ra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4 of the CGST Act. It may also be noted that the exporter of such goods can export the goods only under LUT/bond and can not export on payment of integrated tax. In this connection, notification No. 3/2018-Central Tax dated 23.01.2018 may be referred. 7. I find that condition No.(v) and (ix) of both the Notification No.40/2017 dated 23.10.2017 and 41/2017 dated 23.10.2017 have not been complied with by the appellant in the instant case. The contention of the appellant that they have submitted copy of purchase orders, shipping bill or bill of jading to the Range Office in respect of supply made by the appellant and therefore condition enumerated in the notification has been very well complied with, is not acceptable. The burden to prove ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
