Page 172 - GSTL_11th June 2020_Vol 37_Part 2

258 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 37
the ground that the appellant has claimed DBK in Group A and also not submit-
ted invoices relating to ITC of IGST Rs. 11,680/- and of SGST Rs. 398/-.
4. Being aggrieved with the above impugned order, the appellant has
filed appeal on the following grounds which are summarized as under :-
4.1 That the adjudicating authority in its order raised an entirely differ-
ent ground from the ground raised in the Show Cause Notice and rejected refund
of IGST Rs. 11,219/-, CGST Rs. 6,36,878/- on the ground that the appellant has
claimed DBK in group A and also rejected refund of IGST of Rs. 11,680/- and
SGST Rs. 398/- due to non-submission of invoices.
(i) That sub-section (3) of Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017 is being re-
produced :
(3) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (10), a Registered per-
son may claim refund of any unutilised input tax credit at the end
of any tax period :
Provided that no refund of unutilised input tax credit shall be al-
lowed in cases other than -
(i) zero rated supplies made without payment of tax :
(ii) where the credit has accumulated on account of rate of tax on
inputs being higher than the rate of tax on output supplies
(other than nil rated or hilly exempt supplies), except supplies
of goods or services or both as may be notified by the Gov-
ernment on the recommendations of the Council :
Provided further that no refund of unutilised input tax credit shall
be allowed in cases where the goods exported out of India are sub-
jected to export duty :
Provided also that no refund of input tax credit shall be allowed, if the
supplier of goods or services or both avails of drawback in respect of central
tax or claims refund of the integrated tax paid on such supplies.
4.2 Thai the second proviso to Section 54(3) provides that the refund of
input tax credit shall not be allowed where the supplier avails the drawback in
respect of Central tax or claims refund on Integrated tax on such supplies. It is
therefore a clear position in the CGST Act and consequently in IGST Act that a
supplier availing the drawback of Central tax may not be eligible to claim refund
of accumulated ITC under the CGST Act and there is no dispute in it.
4.3 That on the contrary, the refund claim of the appellant has been re-
jected primarily on the ground of claiming the higher rate of drawback under
Column A of the drawback schedule. The said contention is faulty.
4.4 That Circular No. 22/2017-Cus., dated 30-6-2017 provides for the
amendments effective from 1-7-2017 to All Industry Rates of Duty Drawback and
other Drawback related changes provides that
Transition period :
in order to ensure smooth transition to the GST regime. Government has al-
lowed the extant Duty Drawback scheme to continue for a period, of three
months i.e. from 1-7-2017 to 30-9-2017. The exporter may, for exports made
during this period, continue to claim the composite rates i.e. rates and caps
given under columns (4) and (5) respectively of the Schedule of AIRs of du-
ty drawback, subject to certain additional conditions. During the transition
period, exporters can also claim Brand rate of duty/tax incidence as they
have been doing earlier. The conditions imposed for claiming these compo-
site rates aim to ensure that the exporters do not claim composite AIRs of
duty drawback and simultaneously avail input tax credit of Central Goods
and Services Tax (CGST) or integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) on
GST LAW TIMES  11th June 2020  172