TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 1345X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gned orders is set aside to that extent and direct the adjudicating authority to allow the appellant to present his case regarding not allowing re-credit of the amount already debited to the extent of rejection - Further, the department is free to take appropriate action as per law to recover the ITC of inputs if the appellant had availed ITC on inputs without having proper documents/invoices etc. Recovery of excess amounts sanctioned provisionally for the refund claim file for the month September, 2017 and October, 2017 - appellant has contested that amount cannot be recovered when the re-credit was admissible - HELD THAT:- The contention of the appellant is not acceptable as sanction of refund in cash and allowing of re-credit in the electronic register cannot be considered as same thing. Since, the amount was excess sanctioned in cash; the same is recoverable in cash along with interest. However, the re-credit to the appellant is admissible. Appeals disposed off. - 20-25 (JPM)CGST/JPR/2019 - - - Dated:- 26-12-2019 - (J.P. MEENA) ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) These six appeals have been filed before the appellate authority under Section 107 of the Central ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... V(CGST-I) 18/39/Ref- Gravita/2017/3449 Dated 26.04.18 Application for refund of unutilized ITC for the month of Nov, 2017 ₹ 1,74,35,773/- Refund Section Rs. 1,72,53,403/- Refund rejected ₹ 1,82,370/- 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE: 2.1 The appellant filed applications for refund of unutilized ITC for the month of July 2017, August, 2017, September, 2017, October, 2017 and November, 2017 separately. On examination, it was found that the refund claims were liable to be rejected on the various reasons; therefore Show Cause Notices were issued. After considering the submissions made by the appellant, the adjudicating authority vide the impugned orders has sanctioned the refund as mentioned at column 4 of the table given in para 1 and also rejected the refund claim as mentioned at column 4 of the table given in para 1. 3. Being aggrieved with the impugned orders, the appellant has filed these appeals. 4. Personal hearing in all these matters was held on 21.12.2018 wherein Shri Ranjan Mehta, Authorized Representative of the appellant appeared and explained the case in detail and reiterated the submission m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rovisions and not optional one to be exercisable at the option of the proper officer. The adjudicating authority can follow the other recourse available in the law to disallow the Input tax credit but not at the time of granting or rejecting the refund 8. Appeal No. APPL/JPR/CGST/JP/12/VIII/18 The appellant has filed the instant appeal and shown the amount under dispute as 4,52,125 (Central Tax) ₹ 4,52,125/- (State Tax) totaling ₹ 9,04,250/- adjudicating authority vide the impugned order has held that the claimant has been sanctioned excess refund claim to the extent of ₹ 3,77,758/-( Rs. CGST and ₹ 1,88,879/- SGST) which is not admissible and the same is being deducted from the eligible amount. The adjudicating authority has also held that amounting to ₹ 2,63,246/-/ (CGST) and ₹ 2,63,246/-(SGST) found inadmissible as the claimant has not provided the relevant ITC documents on which ITC has been availed/claimed and ordered for recovery of ₹ 1,45,786/- along with interest excess sanctioned provisionally. The appellant has contested that Rule 93 as well as Circular 17/17/2017 very clearly say that whenever any refund is rejected by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 40,263/- and ₹ 40,263/- (Totaling ₹ 86,194/-) towards IGST, CGST and SGST respectively found inadmissible as the claimant has not provided relevant ITC invoice/documents on which ITC has been availed/claimed. The appellant has contested that Rule 93 as well as Circular 17/17/2017 very clearly say that whenever any refund is rejected by the proper officer then he has to make necessary arrangement by filling Form PMT-03 and RFD-01B to grant the re-credit of rejected amount to them. These are mandatory provisions and not optional one to be exercisable at the option of the proper officer. The adjudicating authority can follow the other recourse available in the law to disallow the Input tax credit but not at the time of granting or rejecting the refund. 11. Appeal No. APPL/JPR/CGST/JP/15/VIII/18 11.1 The appellant has filed the instant appeal and shown the amount under dispute as ₹ 85,189/- (Central Tax) ₹ 85,189/- (State Tax) and ₹ 11,992/- (Integrated Tax) totaling ₹ 1,82,370/-. The adjudicating authority vide the impugned order has held that refund to the extent of ₹ 11,992/-, ₹ 85,189/- and ₹ 85,189/- (totaling ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 03*. Explanation . - For the purposes of this rule, a refund shall be deemed to be rejected, if the appeal is finally rejected or if the claimant gives an undertaking in writing to the proper officer that he shall not file an appeal. Further para 2.10 of CBEC's Circular No. 17/17/2017-GST dated 15.11.2017 stipulates as under: 2.10 After the refund claim is processed in accordance with the provisions of the CGST Act and the rules made thereunder and where any amount claimed as refund is rejected under rule 92 of the CGST Rules, either fully or partly, the amount debited, to the extent of rejection, shall be re-credited to the electronic credit ledger by an order made in FORM GST PMT-03 . The amount would be credited by the proper officer using FORM GST RFD-01B (as notified in the CGST Rules vide notification No. 55/2017-Central Tax, dated 15-11-2017) subject to the provisions of rule 93 of the CGST Rules. 12.1 From the above provisions of law, it can be seen that the adjudicating authority was required to allow the re-credit of the amount already debited to the extent of rejection, but the adjudicating authority has not allowed the re-credit. The above p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|