9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 22X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... here must be supply of goods or services or both. In the present case, the goods are sent either for exhibition or on consignment basis. The goods which are re-imported are the once which are not sold in the Exhibition or are not approved by the buyer. The ownership of the goods does not transfer to the buyer/consignee to whom the goods i.e. appellant. In case of Exhibition, the appellant only takes the goods out of India and brings the same back after Exhibition - in case of goods taken for exhibition both are same person. It is well settled principle that sale cannot be made to oneself only, similar concept is applicable in case of supply as well. Further, there is no consideration paid when the goods are re-imported by the appellant. Thus, at the time of re-import there is no supply of goods as per Section 7 (1) (a) of the CGST Act. Since the goods exported are already held to not to be Goods Supplied but for exhibition, the goods exported on LUT bond gets apparently out of the scope of entry 1(d) of the notification dated 30.6.2017. Thus shall fall under entry 5 of the said notification to which applies Nil duty. Thus, the demand has wrongly been confirmed with respect to these ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to exemption under Sr.5 of Notification No.45/2017 dated 30.6.2017. Since appellant had not paid customs duty, amounting to Rs.1,20,17,423/- was proposed to be recovered from the appellant alongwith penalty and the goods imported by the said bill of entry were proposed to be confiscated. The said proposal has been confirmed vide Order-in-Original No.04/2020-COMMISSIONER (P) Jodhpur dated 5.3.2020 except proposal confiscating the goods under Bill of Entry was not accepted. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before this Tribunal. 2. We have heard Shri Rahul Lakhwani, Chartered Accountant for the appellant and Shri M.K.Chawda, DR for the department. 3. Ld. Counsel for the appellant has mentioned that the adjudicating authority has failed to consider re-imported goods as such where there is no supply of goods involved. The goods were exported for exhibition and those were not sold in the exhibition there, were re-imported. The ownership of the goods does not transfer to buyer/consignee to whom the goods are sent and same remained with the appellant. Since there is no supply of goods in terms of section 7 (1) (c) of CGST Act that the Circular No.21/2019 dated 24.7.2019 issued by CBIC s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upply would be deemed to have been taken place, on the expiry of six months from the date of removal, if the specified said goods are neither sold abroad nor brought back within the said period. c) If the specified goods are sold abroad, fully or partially, within the specified period of six months, the supply is effected in respect of quantity so sold, on the date of such sale. Similarly para 4 of the circular was ignored by the appellant. Thus, the act of the appellant is that of picking and choosing of the clarifications issued by aforesaid circular on 18.7.2019, the same cannot be appreciated. Hence there is no infirmity in the order when the adjudicating authority has denied the benefit of Sl.5 of Notification No.45/2017 dated 30.6.2017 to the appellant. The finding in para 4.18 and 4.19 of the order under challenge are impressed upon. While relying upon GST Circular, Ld.DR submitted that the order under challenge is liable to be upheld and appeal liable to be dismissed. 5. Having heard rival submissions, we observe that the issue involved in the present appeal is about applicability of condition of Notification No.45/2017 dated 30.6.2017 as to whether the re-import, in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atment, whether such costs are actually incurred for not, insurance and freight charges, both ways. 4 Parts, components of aircraft replaced or removed during the course of maintenance, repair or overhaul of the aircraft in a Special Economic Zone and brought to any other place in India. Explanation.- For the purpose of this notification, "Special Economic Zone" has the meaning assigned to it in clause (za) of section 2 of the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 (28 of 2005) Nil 5 Goods other than those falling under Sl.No.1,2,3 and 4; Nil 6. Both parties have relied upon the circular No.108/27/2019-GST dated 18.7.2019 read with circular No.21/2019-Customs dated 24.7.2019 which reads as under: "Subject: Clarification regarding applicability of Notification No.45/2017-Customs dated 30.6.2017 on goods which were exported earlier for exhibition purpose/consignment basis-Regarding Representations have been received for clarifying the issue of applicability of Notification No.45/2017-Customs on the re-import of goods which had been earlier exported either for participation in exhibition or on consignment basis. 2. Matter has been examined. Circular No.108/27/2019-GS ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re-import happens before six months from the date of delivery challans." 7. Perusal of the said notification and circular makes it clear that where the goods exported either under the Scheme of refund of integrated tax paid on export of goods or under bond without payment of integrated tax, on being re-imported, that too within six months of export, the same shall not amount to supply of goods. 8. As per Section 5(1) of the IGST Act levy of the integrated tax is on inter-state 'supply' of goods or services or both. Thus, for levy of integrated tax there must be 'supply' of goods or services or both. 9. In the present case, the goods are sent either for exhibition or on consignment basis. The goods which are re-imported are the once which are not sold in the Exhibition or are not approved by the buyer. The ownership of the goods does not transfer to the buyer/consignee to whom the goods i.e. appellant. In case of Exhibition, the appellant only takes the goods out of India and brings the same back after Exhibition. For supply of goods, there has to be supplier of goods and recipient of goods. However, in case of goods taken for exhibition both are same person. It is well settled p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... serve that out of ten bills of entry export with reference to six of them were made with payment of IGST alongwith interest was paid at the time of export of goods. There is no denial about payment of IGST of Rs.1,50,145/- with interest. The details of these six bills of entries reads as under: Sl.No. Annex. To the SCN) BE No. BE date SB No. SB date IGST amount 3 6382388 15.5.2018 4045625 06.04.2018 29,149/- 5 6529696 25.5.2018 404551 06.04.2018 17,835/- 6 6773948 12.06.2018 4070352 07.04.2018 40,249/- 8 6893860 21.06.2018 4045625 06.04.2018 26,359 9 7056179 03.07.2018 4149823 11.04.2018 28,826/- 10 7203554 13.07.2018 4045625 06.04.2018 7,727/- Total 1,50,145/- Thus no demand in respect of this amount can be confirmed. 13. Since the goods exported are already held to not to be 'Goods Supplied' but for exhibition, the goods exported on LUT bond gets apparently out of the scope of entry 1(d) of the notification dated 30.6.2017. Thus shall fall under entry 5 of the said notification to which applies 'Nil' duty. Thus, we are of the opinion that the demand has wrongly been confirmed with respect to these 3 bills of entry. 14. We further ob ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
