Page 222 - GSTL_30th April 2020_Vol 35_Part 5

692 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 35
Re-deposit of IGST - Refund of the amount of tax wrongly deposited under
CGST instead of IGST allowed for re-deposit as IGST - See under
DEMAND AND INTEREST ............................ 393
Re-export of goods - Demand for bank guarantee of 25 per cent of IGST -
Court vide order dated 9th August, 2018 directed respondent to permit
petitioner to re-export goods on furnishing 25% of Customs duty leviable
on redetermined value of goods - Respondent not entitled to ask for bank
guarantee on amount of IGST on redetermined value of goods -
Communication dated 7th September, 2018, quashed and set aside — Zip
Zap Exim (P) Ltd. v. Union of India (Guj.) ......................... 387
REFUND/REFUND CLAIM :
— adjustment for recovery of dues, suo motu adjustment violating natural
justice - See under RECOVERY .......................... 18
— Cenvat credit on input services used in export of output services in pre-
GST regime, i.e., January, 2017 to June, 2017 and carried forward in
TRAN-1 under GST - Since filing of ST-3 return done away with
introduction of GST, failure to debit Cenvat amount at the time of
claiming its refund as required under condition 2(h) of Notification No.
27/2012-C.E. (N.T.) cannot be a ground for rejecting such refund claim
when assessee reversed said amount in GSTR-3B filed for the month of
April, 2018 - Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and Section 142(3) of
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 — Global Analytics India Pvt. Ltd. v.
Commr. of GST & C. Ex., Chennai (Tri. - Chennai) ...................... 297
— Cenvat credit - Services provided to SEZ Unit - Issue no longer res integra
in view of decision of Tribunal in 2016 (46) S.T.R. 751 (Tri.-Del.) - Cenvat
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
— for exports under Notification No. 17/2009-S.T. - Exporter - Export made
through MMTC Ltd. as per statutory provision in the Foreign Trade
Policy, Schedule-II, Sl. No. 80 - Role of MMTC Ltd. only as intermediary
and restriction imposed in respect of manganese ore governed by Section
3 of Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 - MMTC Ltd. stands
indemnified of all claims, damages, etc., of the foreign buyer and/or
vessels owner in respect of exports to be made through them - Appellant
to be regarded as ‘exporter’ in terms of definition of exporter under
Section 2(20) of Customs Act, 1962 - Refund admissible, all conditions of
the notification having been fulfilled — S.K. Sarawagi & Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Commr.
of CGST & C. Ex., Kolkata South (Tri. - Kolkata) ....................... 208
— 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
GST LAW TIMES  30th April 2020  222