Page 85 - GSTL_ 28th May 2020_Vol 36_Part 4

2020 ] IN RE : SUNIL ENTERPRISES 531
to be rejected on various reasons; therefore Show Cause Notices were issued by
adjudicating authority. After considering the submissions made by the appellant,
the adjudicating authority vide the impugned orders mentioned above in Table
column No. 2 of Para-1, has sanctioned the refund as mentioned above in Table
column No. 5 of Para-1 and also rejected the refund claim as mentioned above in
Table column No. 5 of Para-1.
3. Being aggrieved with the impugned orders, the appellant has filed
these appeals inter alia on the following grounds :
(a) That the adjusted turnover have been taken wrongly treated as total
turnover. For calculating refund of CESS only turnover of CESS
should be treated as adjusted turnover.
(b) As per Circular No. 1/1/2017-Compensation Cess - that the provi-
sion of Section 16 of IGST Act, 2017, relating to Zero rated supply
will apply mutatis mutandis for the purpose of Compensation Cess,
accordingly a suitable change in applying the formula is to be made.
If the said formula is applied without changing then the result
would be absurd and non-usable. For taking adjusted turnover suit-
able change is to be made for CESS. In the light of this fact they have
submitted to change formula and take adjusted total turnover of
CESS for calculating Refund amount.
(c) As per the said Circular above, no compensation Cess will be
charged on the goods exported. Tobacco CESS is being charged on
quantity basis. If refund is not allowed then remaining CESS will be
unconsumed and will be [cost] to the exports. This is not in line
with the principle of the said Circular.
(d) As per Principle of Natural Justice they have exported all the goods
on which CESS is applicable, hence they are eligible for all refund of
goods which are exported.
4. Personal hearing in all these matters was held on 9-1-2019 wherein
Shri Deepak Jain, CA appeared on behalf of the appellant and explained the case
in detail and reiterated the submission made in the grounds of appeals & re-
quested to decide these cases on merits on the basis of facts available on records.
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 held on
9-1-2019. I find that the adjudicating authority has rejected some amount of re-
fund claims on the various reasons.
6. I find that the appellant has raised question on the method of calcu-
lation of refund as prescribed under Rule 89(4) of the CGST Rules, 2017. Their
submission that the adjusted turnover has been taken wrongly as total turnover
and only turnover of CESS should be treated as adjusted turnover, cannot be ac-
cepted in terms of definition of Adjusted Total Turnover as per Rule 89(4)(E) of
the CGST Rules, 2017 which is produced below,
“(E) “Adjusted Total Turnover” means the sum total of the value of -
(a) the turnover in a State or a Union territory, as defined under
clause (112) of section 2, excluding the turnover of services;
and

GST LAW TIMES  28th May 2020  85