9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 1295X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from which the conclusion can be drawn that the car mentioned in the face of invoice is old one - Benefit of Notification No.1/2018-Compensation Cess(Rate) dated 25.01.2018 can be availed for the old and used motor vehicles only - The appellant has not furnished any substantial evidence which prove that the car mentioned in the invoice is old and used in their grounds of appeal. The appellant s contention that the CESS is not applicable on advance towards sale of the car in the light of the N/N. 66/2017- Central Tax dated 15.11.2017 - On plain reading of the Notification it is ample clear that the taxes are payable on the outward supply of goods at the time of supply. But in the instant case on perusal of documents submitted by the appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as exempted vide Notification No.01/2018 Compensation Cess dated 25.01.2018. The CESS amounting to ₹ 66,359/- was deposited by the appellant against Invoice No. A 2250 dated 21.11.2017 having description advance towards sale of car. Nil rate of Cess came into force vide Notification No.01/2018 Compensation Cess dated 25.01.2018. On the other hand, the invoice had already been raised by the appellant on 21.11.2017 with description therein Advance towards sale of car . Accordingly Show Cause Notice dated 27.07.2018 was issued to the appellant by the adjudicating authority for rejection of refund claim of cess which further culminated into the impugned order No.45/GST/Refund/Final/2018-19 dated 13.09.2018 vide which the adjudicati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... memorandum and requested to decide the case at the earliest. 5. I have carefully gone through the facts of the case and records available as well as submissions made by the appellant at the time of personal hearing conducted on 27.03.2019. 6. On perusal of facts available on record, I find that the adjudicating authority has rejected the refund on sole ground that the appellant has not furnished any evidence that the car was old and used. Moreover, on perusal of the invoice No. A 2250 dated 21.11.2017 raised by the appellant in the name of employee Shri Abhishek Mahajan has mentioned in the column description of the Goods Advance Towards the Sale of Car and except this nothing more has been mentioned regarding Old and New nature of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
