9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (4) TMI 499X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. 3 in terms of the impugned order dated 20th June, 2022 is in violation of notification dated 05.10.2017 (supra) issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Commerce & Industry, Department of Industrial Policy & Promotion. 2. Prior to the rolling out of GST regime on 01 July, 2017, the petitioner was entitled to refund of excise duty in terms of excise Exemption Notification No.56/2002-C.E. dated 14.11.2002 and Excise Notification No. 1/2010-C.E. dated 06.02.2010. Both these excise exemption notifications came to be rescinded vide notification No. 21/2017-C.E. dated 18.07.2017. 3. As a measure of goodwill and to provide financial support to the industrial units, which were availing the benefit of excise exemption/refund under the superseded excise Exemption Notifications, the Government of India took a policy decision to provide budgetary support to the existing eligible manufacturing units operating, inter alia, in the then State of Jammu & Kashmir for residual period for which each of the units was eligible. The new Scheme was offered as a measure of goodwill only to the units which were eligible for drawing benefits under the earlier excise duty exemption/refund schemes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctured by eligible units is to the extent of 58% of the CGST and 29% of IGST paid through debit in the cash ledger account maintained by the Unit in terms of Sub-section (1) of Section 49 of the CGST Act, 2017 and Section 20 (i) of IGST Act, 2017, after utilization of the input tax credit of the central tax and integrated tax. It is not disputed that the petitioner-Unit had applied for refund for the above indicated period on account of budgetary support scheme promulgated in terms of notification dated 05.10.2017. The amount, which was found due to the petitioner was sanctioned by the respondents and the claim of excess amount was rejected on the ground that it was not supported by the budgetary support scheme. The manner in which the calculations were made to work out the refund due to the petitioner is, however, not indicated in the objections. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, we are of the considered opinion that the rejection of part of refund claim of the petitioner by respondent No. 3 flies in the face of clear and unambiguous language of Notification dated 05.10.2017. 9. The claim of the petitioner that it is an eligible ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5.2 The above 58% has been fixed taking into consideration that at present Central Government devolves 42% of the taxes on goods and services to the States as per the recommendation of the 14th Finance Commission. 5.3 Notwithstanding, the rescinding of the exemption notifications listed under para 2 above, the limitations, conditions and prohibitions under the respective notifications issued by Department of Revenue as they existed immediately before 01.07.2017 would continue to be applicable under this scheme. However, the provisions relating to facility of determination of special rate under the respective exemption notifications would not apply under this scheme. 5.4 Budgetary support under this scheme shall be worked out on quarterly basis for which claims shall be filed on a quarterly basis namely for January to March, April to June, July to September & October to December. 5.5 Any unit which is found on investigation to over-state its production or make any mis-declaration to claim budgetary support would be made in-eligible for the residual period and be liable to recovery of excess budgetary support paid. Activity relating to concealment of input tax credit, purchase ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or glucose 75 Maize, maize starch or tapioca starch 2. 18 Cocoa butter or powder 75 Cocoa beans 3. 25 Cement 75 Lime stone and gypsum 4. 25 Cement clinker 75 Lime stone 5. 29 All goods 29 Any goods 6. 29 or 38 Fatty acids or glycerin 75 Crude palm kernel, coconut, mustard or repeseed oil 7. 30 All goods 56 Any goods 8. 33 All goods 56 Any goods 9. 34 All goods 38 Any goods 10. 38 All goods 34 Any goods 11. 39 All goods 26 Any goods 12. 40 Tyres, tubes and flaps 41 Any goods 13. 72 Ferro alloys, namely, ferro chrome, ferro manganese or silico manganese 75 Chrone ore or manganese ore 14. 72 or 73 All goods 39 Any goods, other than iron ore 15. 72 or 73 Iron and steel products 75 Iron ore 16. 74 All goods 15 Any goods 17. 76 All goods 36 Any goods 18. 85 Electric motors and generators, electric generating sets and parts thereof 31 Any goods 19 Any chapter Goods other than those mentioned above in S. No.1 to 18 36 Any goods Explanation: For calculation of the value addition the procedure specified in notification no.01/2010-CE dated 06.02.2010 of the Department of Revenue as amended from time ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otification dated 05.10.2017, we find that for the period from January, 2022 to March, 2022, the amount of total GST paid by the petitioner was Rs.22,77,395/-. After utilizing the input credit, the petitioner paid an amount of Rs. 7,65,713/- by debit to the cash ledger. 14. As per the budgetary scheme, the amount which would be payable to the petitioner on account of budgetary support would be 58% of the amount of CGST paid in cash, which would come to Rs. 4,44,114/. 15. In the instant case, the CGST on value addition would be 75% (Chapter 25 of Table of Excise Notification No. 1/2010-C.E. dated 06.02.2010) of the total amount of CGST paid for the quarter January, 2022 to March, 2022, which, in any case, would be exceeding the refund claim. In view of the aforesaid, we see no error or mistake committed by the petitioner claiming a refund of Rs. 4,44,114/-.We also find no good reason emerging from the impugned order passed by respondent No. 3 to justify the rejection of claim of the petitioner for an amount of Rs. 2195/-, which the respondent No. 3 has held to be an amount inadmissible on account of budgetary support. We could have better analyzed the problem posed before us had t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
