Page 128 - GSTL_21st May 2020_Vol 36_Part 3

374 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 36
3 CGST/JP/23/ 76/Ref/2018, The refund of Rs. 1,13,850/- filed on
IX/18 dated 24-7-2018 11-4-2018 under Section 142(1) of the
CGST Act, 2017 for Central Excise duty
paid on goods cleared before appointed
day but the goods were returned after
appointed day, has been rejected.
4 CGST/JP/22/ 75/Ref/2018, The refund of Rs. 2,59,740/- filed on
IX/18 dated 24-7-2018 11-4-2018 under Section 142(1) of the
CGST Act, 2017 for Central Excise duty
paid on goods cleared before appointed
day but the goods were returned after
appointed day, has been rejected.
5 CGST/JP/26/ 79/Ref/2018, The refund of Rs. 16,346/- filed on
IX/18 dated 24-7-2018 11-4-2018 under Section 142(1) of the
CGST Act, 2017 for Central Excise duty
paid on goods cleared before appointed
day but the goods were returned after
appointed day, has been rejected.

2. Brief facts of the case :
2.1 The appellant is registered under GST with GSTIN
08AAACB7092E1ZR. The said appellant was also earlier registered under Cen-
tral Excise having Registration No. AAACB7092EXM001 and was engaged in the
manufacture of High Chrome Grinding Media Balls and Alloy Steel Castings
falling under Chapter Heading No. 7325 91 00 and 7325 99 20 of the Central Ex-
cise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellant filed applications for refund for Central Excise
duty paid on the goods cleared by various invoices mentioned in the impugned
orders but the impugned goods returned as rejected from registered buyer under
Section 142(1) of the CGST Act, 2017.
2.2 The appellant has paid Central Excise duty on the impugned goods
cleared before appointed day but the goods was returned after appointed day.
On examination, it was found that the refund claims were filed to the jurisdic-
tional authority, thereafter, the jurisdictional authority issued Show Cause Notic-
es to the appellant as to why the refund claims be rejected on the various reasons.
After considering the submissions made by the appellant, the adjudicating au-
thority vide the impugned orders as mentioned in the column No. 3 of Para 1 of
this order has rejected all the refund claims mentioned in column No. 4 of Para 1
on the following grounds;
(A) The identity of returned goods/rejected goods cannot be identified
with the goods sent originally to the receiver by the appellant.
(B) The receiver of goods who returned the goods are registered with
GSTIN and therefore they were required to return the rejected
goods to the appellant as supply in terms of Section 142(1) of the
CGST Act, 2017.
3. Being aggrieved with the impugned orders, the appellant has filed
these appeals for seeking relief on the various grounds which may be summa-
rized as under :
3.1 Regarding intimation under Section 142(1) of the CGST [Act], 2017.
It is submitted that on perusal of Section 142(1) of the CGST [Act], 2017 it is clear
GST LAW TIMES  21st May 2020  128