Page 129 - GSTL_21st May 2020_Vol 36_Part 3

2020 ] IN RE : SHRI BALAJI INDUSTRIES PRODUCTS LTD. 375
that no obligation is casted on the appellant to intimate the department on re-
ceipt of rejected goods. Therefore, the refund cannot be rejected on this ground.
3.2 It is also submitted that since the goods supplied by the appellant
have been rejected and returned back by M/s. Damodar Valley Corporation,
Chandrapura Thermal Power Station, Chandrapura, Bokaro, Jharkhand and by
M/s. Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited. It is a simple case of rejection and
return of goods to the appellant. Since, the returned goods have been rejected.
Therefore, it is not a case of supply of goods. Thus on this ground the refund is
not required to be rejected. Further, it is important to note that M/s. Damodar
Valley Corporation, Chandrapura Thermal Power Station, Chandrapura, Bokaro,
Jharkhand and M/s. Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited are exempt from pay-
ment of GST therefore, the return of rejected goods are not supply in the hands of
M/s Damodar Valley Corporation, Chandrapura Thermal Power Station, Chan-
drapura, Bokaro, Jharkhand and M/s. Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited.
Consequently, the condition in the Section 142(1) of the CGST [Act], 2017 is satis-
fied.
4. Personal hearing in all these matters was held on 29-11-2018 wherein
Shri Pankaj Malik, Partner of M/s. Pankaj Malik & Co., appeared for personal
hearing in the case on behalf of the appellant and reiterated the grounds of ap-
peals mentioned in the appeal memorandum and requested to decide the case
accordingly.
5. I have carefully gone through the case records and submission made
in the appeal memorandum as well as at the time of personal hearing. I find that
in all the five appeals, the issue involved is that the appellant filed applications
for refund 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 by the
receiver after appointed day. In terms of provision of Section 142(1) of the CGST
Act, 2017, where any goods on which duty, if any, had been paid under the exist-
ing law at the time of removal thereof, not being earlier than six months prior to
the appointed day, are returned to any place of business on or after the appoint-
ed day, the registered person shall be eligible for refund of the duty paid under
the existing law where such goods are returned by a person, other than a regis-
tered person, to the said place of business within a period of six months from the
appointed day and such goods are identifiable to the satisfaction of the proper
officer :
Provided that if the said goods are returned by a registered person, the
return of such goods shall be deemed to be a supply. On plain reading of the
provisions of the Section 142(1) of the CGST Act, 2017, it can be seen that refund
is admissible in following circumstances;
(A) If the goods are sold/removed within 6 months prior to the ap-
pointed day.
(B) If the goods are returned within 6 months from the appointed day.
(C) If the proper officer can satisfactorily identify the goods.
(D) If such goods are returned by a person, other than a registered per-
son
(E) If the said goods are returned by a registered person, the return of
such goods shall be deemed to be a supply.
6. The adjudicating authority has rejected the refund claims filed by the
appellant on the two reasons. Therefore I take up the reasons one by one. The
GST LAW TIMES  21st May 2020  129