9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 939X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stered supplier - In the present case, the petitioner has placed on record the invoice which is of 30.6.2019 and thereafter the buyer i.e. Quality Biz Chem India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai has exported the goods under shipping bill dated 6.7.2019 - The conditions mentioned in the aforesaid notification clearly envisages that all the conditions are not to be fulfilled or complied with by the petitioner but the conditions are to be complied with by the exporter. The petitioner uploaded the refund claim on 12.3.2021 however, the respondent on a technical ground did not grant the refund and passed the impugned order dated 22.6.2021. The Hon ble Apex Court in M/S BONANZA ENGINEERING CHEMICAL PVT LTD VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE [ 2012 (3) TMI 69 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition are as under: 4.1 It is stated that the petitioner no. 1 is holding GST Registration from the beginning of the introduction of CGST. It is stated that the petitioner had received purchase order from registered exporter viz., Quality Biz Chem India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai to supply the goods at the concessional rate of IGST at the rate of 0.1% in terms of Notification No. 41/2017 - Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 23.10.2017 as they intended to export the goods. On the basis of the purchased order, the petitioner had supplied the goods to the buyer on payment of full duty (under an error) of IGST at the rate of 18% instead of concessional rate of 0.1% in terms of Notification No. 41/2017 Int ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id not accept the explanation furnished by the petitioner and issued show cause notice dated 15.04.2021 as to why the refund claim of Rs. 23,09.100/- should not be rejected. The petitioner submitted its explanation, however, without recording proper finding on each submission, the respondent confirmed the proposal to the notice by passing an order in original dated 07.05.2021. The petitioner has, therefore, preferred present petition. 5. Heard learned advocate, Mr. Dhaval Shah for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel, Mr. Priyank Lodha for the respondents. 6. Learned advocate for the petitioner mainly contended that the respondents have committed an error in denying the benefit of concessional rate of duty as provided under notificat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Learned Standing Counsel would mainly contend that the Assistant Commissioner has denied the refund claim on legal ground as the petitioner has filed refund claim claiming that they have supplied the goods to the Merchant Exporter under Notification No. 41/2017 Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 23.10.2017 but they have not fulfilled the condition as laid down in the said Notification. As per the said Notification, the petitioner was entitled to pay GST at the concessional rate of 0.1% subject to the fulfillment of the conditions as prescribed under the said Notification for supplying the goods to the Merchant Exporter for export purpose. The said refund claim has been rejected on the basis of non-submission of documents by the petitioner which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i) the registered recipient shall export the said goods within a period of 90 days from the date of issue of a tax invoice by the registered supplier. 12. Thus, the duty is cast upon the registered recipient to export the goods within a period of 90 days from the date of issue of tax invoice by the registered supplier. In the present case, the petitioner has placed on record the invoice which is of 30.6.2019 and thereafter the buyer i.e. Quality Biz Chem India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai has exported the goods under shipping bill dated 6.7.2019. Hence, the condition no.(ii) as mentioned hereinabove has been fulfilled. The conditions mentioned in the aforesaid notification clearly envisages that all the conditions are not to be fulfilled or complied w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2/2002-B, dated 25.10.2002. 14. Thus, the Hon ble Apex Court has taken a view that merely because by mistake, the assessee paid duties on the goods which are exempted from payment does not mean that the goods would become goods liable for the duty under the Act. 15. In the case of Share Medical Care v. Union of India reported in 2007(4) SCC, 573 , paragraph Nos. 10 and 15 are reproduced hereunder: 10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, in our opinion, the appeal deserves to be allowed. It is, no doubt, true that initially the appellant claimed exemption under category 2 of exemption notification which was granted. That, however, does not mean that the appellant could not claim exemption under category 3. So far as cancellation of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
