Page 29 - GSTL_2nd April 2020_Vol 35_Part 1

2020 ] INDEX - 2nd April, 2020 xxvii
Refund/Refund Claim (Contd.)
credit and consequent refund admissible - Rules 3 and 5 of Cenvat Credit
Rules, 2004 — Commissioner of Cus., C. Ex. & S.T., Noida v. HCL Technologies Ltd. (Tri.
- All.) ........................................ 121
— IGST on exports - Exporters would not voluntarily opt for drawback
claim under Column A of Notification No. 131/2016-Cus. (N.T.) at cost of
foregoing IGST paid on exports - Where duty drawback rates under
Columns A and B were same, exporters would receive drawback amount
even if they mentioned “B” in their shipping bills instead of “A” for
claiming drawback — TMA International Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (Del.) ........ 22
— IGST on exports during transitional period - Benefit claimed inadvertently
under wrong provision as there was lack of clarity on refund - Wrong
input given at time of claiming drawback - Cost analysis showing that
denial of refund would cause severe financial crunch to exporters -
HELD : Such inadvertent and unintentional error could not deprive
exporter their valuable right of refund of IGST paid on exports - Cardinal
rule is that taxes should not be exported - Concept of zero-rated exports
achieves this objective - Exporter was victim of technical glitches due to
confusion during transitional phase, and they could not be assumed to
have intentionally decided to claim duty drawback and forego IGST
refund - Before issuing final directions, Department directed to verify
extent of duty drawback availed by exporter and duty drawback/Cenvat
credit component in exports — TMA International Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (Del.) ... 22
— Limitation - Delay in filing - Condonation of - Exemption relating to long
term lease of industrial plots under Section 104(1) of Finance Act, 2017 -
Finance Bill, 2017 receives the assent of President on 31-3-2017, thus the
refund claim, ought to have been filed on or before 30-9-2017 - Refund
claim was filed on 16-11-2017 - Service Tax on development charges was
collected by SIPCOT, who is service provider - Thus only after getting
information from SIPCOT that SIPCOT has deposited the Service Tax
with the Department and also getting details of such deposit in the
nature of tax paid challan, the appellant can file the refund - Essential for
appellant to get information from SIPCOT as to eligibility of the refund -
Person who can make the refund claim having not been specified in
Section 104 ibid, the plea put forward by appellants that they were
unable to make claim before 30-9-2017 is not without substance -
Appellants were not in a position to file refund claim due to delay caused
by SIPCOT - Thus delay caused by SIPCOT in informing the appellants
has to be excluded for computing the period of limitation - Section 11B of
Central Excise Act, 1944 as applicable to Service Tax vide Section 83 of
Finance Act, 1994 — Teknomec v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai (Tri.
- Chennai) ....................................... 135
— Limitation - Erection, Commissioning and Installation Service provided to
(i) Department of Atomic Energy, Government of India; and (ii)
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) - Assessee pleading
limitation period under Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944,
inapplicable as Service Tax amount paid by mistake liable to be treated as
deposit with Government - HELD : Refund claim preferred by assessee in
terms of provisions of impugned Section 11B ibid, hence it cannot be said
that except for limitation other provisions of Section 11B ibid be made
applicable to assessee - Even though assessee paid Service Tax on
GST LAW TIMES  2nd April 2020  93