9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 1341X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3 CGST/JP/23/ IX/18 76/Ref/2018 dated 24.07.2018 The refund of ₹ 1,13,850/- filed on 11.04.18 under section 142(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 for Central Excise Duty paid on goods cleared before appointed day but the goods were returned after appointed day, has been rejected. 4 CGST/JP/22/ IX/18 75/Ref/2018 dated 24.07.2018 The refund of ₹ 2,59,740/- filed on 11.04.18 under section 142(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 for Central Excise Duty paid on goods cleared before appointed day but the goods were returned after appointed day, has been rejected. 5 CGST/JP/26/ IX/18 79/Ref/2018 dated 24.07.2018 The refund of ₹ 16,346/- filed on 11.04.18 under section 142(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 for Central Excise Duty paid on goods cleared before appointed day but the goods were returned after appointed day, has been rejected. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE: 2.1 The appellant is registered under GST with GSTIN 08AAACB7092EIZR. The said appellant was also earlier registered under Central E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods. Thus on this ground the refund is not required to be rejected. Further, it is important to note that M/s Damodar Valley Corporation, Chandrapura Thermal Power Station, Chandrapura, Bokaro, Jharkhand and M/s Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited are exempt from payment of GST therefore, the return of rejected goods are not supply in the hands of M/s Damodar Valley Corporation, Chandrapura Thermal Power Station, Chandrapura, Bokaro, Jharkhand and M/s Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited. Consequently, the condition in the Section 142(1) of the CGST, 2017 is satisfied. 4. Personal hearing in all these matters was held on 29.11.2018 wherein Shri Pankaj Malik, Partner of M/s Pankaj Malik Co., appeared for personal hearing in the case on behalf of the appellant and reiterated the grounds of appeals mentioned in the appeal memorandum and requested to decide the case accordingly. 5. I have carefully gone through the case records and submission made in the appeal memorandum as well as at the time of personal hearing. I find that in all the five appeals, the issue involved is that the appellant filed applications for refund under section 142(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 for Central ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the rejection letter issued by M/s Damodar Valley Corporation or by M/s Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited is also available. I observe 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, I do not find any 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. 7. The adjudicating authority has also rejected the refund claims 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 sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
